Both the city and the state of Rome are represented in tradition
as having been gradually formed by the fusion of separate communities.
The original settlement of Romulus is said to have
been limited to the Palatine Mount. With this were united
before the end of his reign the Capitoline and the Quirinal;
Tullus Hostilius added the Caelian, Ancus Martius the Aventine;
and finally Servius Tullius included the Esquiline and Viminal,
and enclosed the whole seven hills with a stone wall. The
growth of the state closely followed that of the city. To the
original Romans on the Palatine were added successively the
Sabine followers of King Tatius, Albans transplanted by Tullus,
Latins by Ancus, and lastly the Etruscan comrades of Caeles
Vibenna. This tradition is supported by other and more
positive evidence. The race of the Luperci on February 15
was in fact a purification of the boundaries of the “ancient
Palatine town,”[1] the “square Rome” of Ennius;[2] and the
course taken is that described by Tacitus as the “pomoerium”
of the city founded by Romulus.[3] On the Esquiline, Varro
mentions an “ancient city” and an “earthen rampart,”[4] and
the festival of the Septimontium is evidence of a union between
this settlement and that on the Palatine.[5] The fusion of these
“Mounts” with a settlement on the Quirinal “Hill” is also
attested by trustworthy evidence;[6] and in particular the line
taken by the procession of the Argei represents the enlarged
boundaries of these united communities.[7] Lastly, the Servian
agger still remains as a witness to the final enclosure of the
various settlements within a single ring-wall. The united community
thus formed was largely of Latin descent. Indications
of this are not, wanting even in the traditions themselves:
King Faunus, who rules the Aborigines on the Palatine, is Latin;
“Latini” is the name ascribed to the united Aborigines and
Trojans; the immediate progenitors of Rome are the Latin
Lavinium and the Latin Alba. Much evidence in the language,
the religion, the institutions and, the civilization of early Rome
points to the same conclusion. The speech of the Romans is
from the first Latin,[8] though showing many traces of contact
with the neighbouring dialects of the Sabines and Volscians and
also of Etruscans; the oldest gods of Rome—Saturn, Jupiter,
Juno, Diana—are all Latin; “rex,” “praetor,”, “dictator,”
“curia,” are Latin titles and institutions.[9] The primitive
settlements, with their earthen ramparts and wooden palisades
planted upon them out of reach both of human foes and of the
malaria of the swampy low grounds, are only typical of the
mode of settlement which the conditions of life dictated throughout
the Latian plain.[10] But tradition insists on the admixture
of at least two non-Latin elements, a Sabine and an Etruscan.
The question as regards the latter will be more fully discussed
hereafter; it is enough to say here that while the evidence of
nomenclature (Schulze, Geschichte der Lat. Eigennamen, Leipzig,
1904, p. 579, with the modifications suggested in the ClassicalReview, December 1907) shows that many Etruscan gentes
were settled within the bounds of the early city, there is no
satisfactory evidence that there was any large Etruscan strain
The Sabines in Rome.
in the Roman blood.[11] With the Sabines it is otherwise.
That union of the Palatine and Quirinal settlements
which constituted so decisive a stage in the growth
of Rome is represented as having been in reality a union
of the original Latins with a band of Sabine invaders who had
seized and held not only the Quirinal Hill, but the northern
and nearest peak of the Capitoline Mount. The tradition was
evidently deeply rooted. The name of the god Quirinus, from
which that of the Quirinal Hill itself presumably sprang, was
popularly connected with the Sabine town of Cures.[12] The
ancient worships connected with it were said to be
Sabine.[13]
One of the three old tribes, the Tities, was believed to represent
the Sabine element;[14] the second and the fourth kings are both
of Sabine descent. By the great majority of modern writers
the substance of the tradition, the fusion of a body of Sabine
invaders with the original Latins, is accepted as historical; and
even Mommsen allowed its possibility, though he threw back
the time of its occurrence to an earlier period than that of the
union of the two settlements.[15] We cannot here enter into the
question at length, but some fairly certain points may be
mentioned. The probability of Sabine raids and a Sabine
settlement, possibly on the Quirinal Hill, in very early times
may be admitted. The incursions of the highland Apennine
tribes into the lowlands fill a large place in early Italian history.
The Latins were said to have originally descended from the
mountain glens near Reate.[16] The invasions of Campania and
of Magna Graecia by Sabine (more correctly Safine) tribes are
matter of history (see Samnites), and the Sabines themselves
are represented as a restless highland people, ever seeking, new
homes in richer lands.[17] In very early days they appear on the
borders of Latium, in closing proximity to Rome, and Sabine
forays are familiar and frequent occurrences in the old legends.
But beyond these general considerations recent inquiry enables
us to advance to some few definite conclusions. (1) It may now
be regarded as established beyond question that the patrician
class at Rome sprang from a race other than that of the plebeians.
This was long ago recognized by Schwegler (see his RömischeGeschichte, passim) on the sufficient ground of the great religious
cleavage between the two orders. Such jealousy of mutual
contact in religious matters as is apparent all through the
history of the city very rarely, if ever, springs from any other
source than a real difference of race. This point was developed
by Professor W. Ridgeway in his Who were the Romans? (London,
1908), where he points out (a) that the deities tended by the
three greater or patrician flamens, namely, Dialis, Martialis,
Quirinalis, were all closely connected with the Sabines; (b)
further, that the patrician form of marriage, the highly religious
ceremony called Confarreatio, differed entirely from the other
forms, Usus and Coemptio, which there is reason to attribute to
a plebeian origin; (c) that the arms, especially the round
shield, carried by the first class in the originally military constitution
of Servius Tullius (see below), are characteristic of the
warriors of Central Europe in the Early Iron and Bronze Age,
whereas those of the remaining classes can be shown to have
been in general use during the immediately preceding period in
the Mediterranean lands.

For other archaeological evidence separating the patricians
from the plebeians, and connecting the patricians closely with
the Sabines the reader must be referred to Ridgeway's essay.
It is, however, well to make special mention here of the tradition,
which is given by Livy (ii. 16. 4), and is undated but not the less
probable for being a non-annalistic tradition, preserved in the
gens itself, of the prompt welcome given to the Sabine Appius
Claudius, the founder of the haughtiest of all the Roman noble
families, by the patricians of Rome and his immediate admission
to all their political privileges. Ridgeway points out that this
implies, at that early time, a substantial identity of race.

On the linguistic side of the question it is well to mention
for clearness' sake that this Safine or patrician class marked its
ascendancy all over Central and Southern Italy, from the
6th century B.C. onwards, by its preference for forming ethnic
names with the suffix -no- which it frequently imposed also
upon the communities whom it brought under its influence.
Sabini (earlier Safini), Romani, Latini, Sidicini, Aricini,
Marrucini, and the like are all names formed in this way (see
further Sabini).

2. It may also now be regarded as certain that what we may
call the Lower or Earlier Stratum (or Strata) of population in
Rome, themselves spoke a language which was as truly Indo-European
as the language of their Safine conquerors. In the
article Volsci will be found evidence for the conclusion that
the language of what has been there entitled the Co-Folk was
not less certainly Indo-European, and in some respects probably
a less modified form of Indo-European, than that of the Safines.
A number of the names formed with the -co- suffix and with
the -ati- suffix (which is frequent in the same districts) contain
unmistakably Indo-European words such as Graviscae, Marica,
dea Marica, Volsci, Casinates, Soracte, Interamnites, Auxumates.
The fusion of this earlier population with the patricians is far
easier to imagine when it is recognized that the two parties
spoke kindred though by no means identical languages. It is
the essentially Indo-European character of the early inhabitants
of the Latin plain which has led many scholars to doubt that
there was any racial distinction at all between patricians and
plebeians, but the increase of knowledge of the dialects spoken
in the different regions of Italy has now enabled us to judge
this question with very much fuller evidence.

3. There arises, however, the important question or questions
as to the origin, or at least the ethnic connexions of this earlier
stratum. The task of the historic inquirer will not be completely
performed until at least some further progress has been made
in connecting this earlier population of the western coast of
Italy, on the one hand, with one or more of the early races
(see Siculi, Veneti, Liguria, Pelasgians) whom tradition
declares to have once inhabited the soil of Latium; and on
the other, with the people or peoples whom archaeological
research reveals to us as having left behind them different strata
of remains, all earlier than the Iron or Roman Age, both in
Latium and in other parts of Italy. Professor Ridgeway has
taken a short way with these problems which may prove to be
the true one; he classes together as Ligurian all pre-Safine
inhabitants of Italy save such elements as, like the Etruscans,
can be shown to have invaded it over sea (see Etruria,
§ Language). This is one of the most promising fields of investigation
now open to scholars, but in view of the confused and
mutilated shape in which the traditions current in ancient
times have come down to us, it demands an exceedingly careful
scrutiny of the archaeological and the linguistic evidence, and
exceedingly cautious judgment in combining them. The point
of outstanding importance is to determine whether the earlier
Indo-European population is to be regarded as having been
in Italy from the beginning of human habitation. Archaeologists
generally like W. Helbig (Die Italiker der Poebene) and
more recently B. Modestov (Introduction à l'histoire romaine,
Paris, 1907) have been inclined to regard the Ligurians as the
most primitive population of Italy, but to distinguish them
sharply from the people who built the Lake Settlement and
Pile Dwellings, which appear (with important variations of
type):—(1) in the western half of the valley of the Po; (2) in
the eastern half of the same; (3) in Picenum; (4) in Latium;
and (5) as far south as Tarentum. One of the most important
points in the identification is the question of the method
of burial employed at different epochs by the different
communities. (See the works already cited, with that of
O. Montelius, La Civilisation primitive en Italie.)

The populus Romanus was, we are told, divided into
three tribes, Ramnes, Tities and Luceres,[18] and into thirty
The people.
curiae. The three names, as Schulze has shown
(Lat. Eigennamen, p. 580), are neither more nor less
than the names of three Etruscan gentes (whether
or not derived from Safine or Latin originals), and the tradition
is a striking result of the Etruscan domination in the 6th century
B.C.,[19] which we shall shortly consider.

Of far greater importance is the division into curiae. In
Cicero's time there were still curies, curial festivals and curiate
assemblies, and modern authors are unquestionably right in
regarding the curia as the keystone of the primitive political
system. It was a primitive association held together by participation
in common sacra, and possessing common festivals,
common priests and a common chapel, hall and hearth. As
separate associations the curiae were probably older than the
Roman state, but,[20] however this may be, it is certain that of
this state when formed they constituted the only effective
political subdivisions. The members of the thirty curiae form
the populus Romanus, and the earliest known condition of
Roman citizenship is the communio sacrorum, partnership
in the curial sacra. Below the curia there was no further
political division, for there is no reason to believe that the curia
was ever formally subdivided into a fixed number of gentes
and families.[21]

At their head was the rex, the ruler of the united people.
The Roman “king” is not simply either the hereditary and
The king.
patriarchal chief of a clan, the priestly head of a
community bound together by common sacra, but the
elected magistrate of a state, but a mixture of all three.[22] In
later times, when no “patrician magistrates” were forthcoming
to hold the elections for their successors, a procedure was
adopted which was believed to represent the manner in which
the early kings had been appointed.[23] In this procedure the
ancient privileges of the old gentes and their elders, the
importance of maintaining unbroken the continuity of the
sacra, on the transmission and observance of which the welfare
of the community depended, and thirdly the rights of
the freemen, are all recognized. On the death of a king, the
auspicia, and with them the supreme authority, revert to the
council of elders, the patres, as representing the gentes.
By the patres an interrex is appointed, who in turn
nominates a second; by him, or even by a third or fourth
interrex, a new king is selected in consultation with the patres.
The king-designate is then proposed to the freemen assembled
by their curiae for their acceptance, and finally their formal
acceptance is ratified by the patres, as a security that the
sacra of which they are the guardians have been
respected.[24]
Thus the king is in the first instance selected by the representatives
of the old gentes, and they ratify his appointment. In
form he is nominated directly by a predecessor from whose
hands he receives the auspicia. But it is necessary also that
the choice of the patres and the nomination of the interrex
should be confirmed by a solemn vote of the community.

It is useless to attempt a precise definition of the prerogatives
of the king when once installed in office. Tradition ascribes
to him a position and powers closely resembling those of the
heroic kings of Greece. He rules for life, and he is the sole
ruler, unfettered by written statutes. He is the supreme judge,
settling all disputes and punishing wrongdoers even with death.
All other officials are appointed by him. He imposes taxes,
distributes lands and erects buildings. Senate and assembly
meet only when he convenes them, and meet for little else
than to receive communications from him. In war he is
absolute leader,[25] and finally he is also the religious head of the
community. It is his business to consult the gods on its behalf,
to offer the solemn sacrifices and to announce the days of the
public festivals. Hard by his house was the common hearth
of the state, where the vestal virgins cherished the sacred fire.

By the side of the king stood the senate, or council of elders.
In the descriptions left us of the primitive senate, as in those
The senate.
of the rex, we can discover traces of a transition from
an earlier state of things when Rome was only an assemblage of
clans or village communities, allied indeed,
but each still ruled by its own chiefs and headmen, to one in
which these groups have been fused into a single state under
a common ruler. On the one hand the senate appears as a
representative council of chiefs, with inalienable prerogatives
of its own, and claiming to be the ultimate depositary of
the supreme authority and of the sacra connected with it.
The senators are the patres; they are taken from the leading
gentes; they hold their seats for life; to them the auspicia
revert on the death of a king; they appoint the interrex from
their own body, are consulted in the choice of the new
king,[26]
and their sanction is necessary to ratify the vote of the assembled
freemen. On the other hand, they are no longer supreme.
They cannot appoint a king but with the consent of the
community, and their relation to the king when appointed is one
of subordination. Vacancies in their ranks are filled up by
him, and they can but give him advice and counsel when he
chooses to consult them.

The popular assembly of united Rome in its earliest days
was that in which the freemen met and voted by their curiae
The assembly.
(comitia curiata[27]). The place of assembly was in
the Comitium at the north-east end of the Forum,[28]
at the summons and under the presidency of the king
or, failing him, of the interrex. By the rex or the interrex
the question was put, and the voting took place curiatim, the
curiae being called up in turn. The vote of each curia was
decided by the majority of individual votes, and a majority of
the votes of the curiae determined the final result. But the
occasions on which the assembly could exercise its power must
have been few. Their right to elect magistrates was apparently
limited to the acceptance or rejection of the king proposed by
the interrex. Of the passing of laws, in the later sense of the
term, there is no trace in the kingly period. Dionysius's
statement[29]
that they voted on questions of war and peace is improbable
in itself and unsupported by tradition. They are
indeed represented, in one instance, as deciding a capital case,
but it is by the express permission of the king and not of
right.[30]
Assemblies of the people were also, and probably more frequently,
convened for other purposes. Not only did they meet to hear
from the king the announcement of the high days and holidays
for each month, and to witness such solemn religious rites as the
inauguration of a priest, but their presence (and sometimes
their vote) was further required to authorize and attest certain
acts, which in a later age assumed a more private character.
The disposal of property by will[31] and the solemn renunciation
of family or gentile sacra[32] could only take place in the presence
of the assembled freemen, while for adoption[33] (adrogatio) not
only their presence but their formal consent was necessary.

A history of this early Roman state is out of the question.
The names, dates and achievements of the first four kings are
Rome under the kings.
all too unsubstantial to form the basis of a sober
narrative;[34] a few points only can be considered as
fairly well established. If we except the long eventless
reign ascribed to King Numa, tradition represents the first
kings as incessantly at war with their immediate neighbours.
The details of these wars are no doubt mythical; but the
implied condition of continual struggle, and the narrow range
within which the struggle is confined, may be accepted as true.
The picture drawn is that of a small community, with a few
square miles of territory, at deadly feud with its nearest neighbours,
within a radius of some 12 m. round Rome. Nor, in
spite of the repeated victories with which tradition credits
Romulus, Ancus and Tullus, does there seem to have been
any real extension of Roman territory except towards the sea.
Fidenae remains Etruscan; the Sabines continue masters up to
the Anio; Praeneste, Gabii and Tusculum are still untouched;
and on this side it is doubtful if Roman territory, in spite of the
possible destruction of Alba, extended to a greater distance
than the sixth milestone from Rome.[35] But along the course
of the Tiber below the city there was a decided advance. The
fortification of the Janiculum; the building of the pons sublicius,
the foundation of Ostia and the acquisition of the salt-works
near the sea may all be safely ascribed to this early period.
Closely connected, too, with the control of the Tiber from
Rome to the sea was the subjugation of the petty Latin communities
lying south of the river; and the tradition of the
conquest and destruction of Politorium, Tellenae and Ficana
is confirmed by the absence in historical times of any Latin
communities in this district.

With the reign of the fifth king Tarquinius Priscus a marked
change takes place. The traditional accounts of the last three
The Tarquins.
kings not only wear a more historical air than those of
the first four, but they describe something like a transformation
of the Roman city and state. Under the rule
of these latter kings the separate settlements are for the first time
enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and
extent.[36] The low
grounds are drained, and a forum and circus elaborately laid
out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple, is erected, the massive
foundations of which were an object of wonder even to
Pliny.[37]
To the same period are assigned the redivision of the city area into
four new districts and the introduction of a new military system.
The kings increase in, power and surround themselves with new
splendour. Abroad, too, Rome suddenly appears as at powerful
state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and Latium.
These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to kings of
alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in the teeth
of established constitutional forms. Finally, with the expulsion
of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a sudden
shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the Republic
Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile
and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is impossible
to doubt the conviction that the true explanation of this phenomenon
is to be found in the supposition that Rome during this
period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan
lords.[38] In
the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., and probably earlier still, the
Etruscans appear as ruling widely outside the limits of Etruria
proper. They were supreme in the valley of the Po until their
power there was broken by the irruption of Celtic tribes from
beyond the Alps, and while still masters of the plains of Lombardy
they established themselves in the rich lowlands of Campania,
where they held their ground until the capture of Capua by
the Samnite highlanders in 423 B.C. It is on the face of it
improbable that a power which had extended its sway from
the Alps to the Tiber, and from the Liris to Surrentum, should
have left untouched the intervening stretch of country between
the Tiber and the Liris. And there is abundant evidence of
Etruscan rule in Latium.[39] According to Dionysius there was
a time when the Latins were known to the Greeks as Tyrrhenians,
and Rome as a Tyrrhenian city.[40] When Aeneas landed
in Italy the Latins were at feud with Turnus (Turrhenos?
Dionys. i. 64) of Ardea, whose close ally was the ruthless Mezentius,
prince of Caere, to whom the Latins had been forced to pay a
tribute of wine.[41] Cato declared the Volsci to have been once
subject to Etruscan rule,[42] and Etruscan remains found at
Velitrae,[43] as well, as; the second name of the Volscian Anxur,
Tarracina (the city of Tarchon), confirm his statement. Nearer
still to Rome is Tusculum, with its significant name, at Praeneste
we have a great number of Etruscan inscriptions and bronzes,
and at Alba we hear of a prince Ταρχέτιος,[44] lawless and cruel like
Mezentius, who consults the “oracle of Tethys in Tyrrhenia.”
Thus we find the Etruscan power encircling Rome on all sides,
and in Rome itself a tradition of the rule of princes of Etruscan
origin. The Tarquinii come, from south Etruria; their name
can hardly be anything else than the Latin equivalent of the
Etruscan Tarchon, and is therefore possibly a title (= “lord”
or “prince”) rather than a proper name.[45] Even Servius Tullius
was identified by Tuscan chroniclers with an Etruscan “Mastarna.”[46]
Again, what we are told of Etruscan conquests does
not represent them as moving, like the Sabellian tribes, in large
bodies and settling down en masse in the conquered districts.
We hear rather of military raids led by ambitious chiefs who
carve out principalities for themselves with their own good
swords, and with their followers rule oppressively over alien
and subject peoples.[47] And so at Rome the story of the Tarquins
implies not, a wave of Etruscan immigration so much as a rule
of Etruscan princes over conquered Latins.

The achievements ascribed to the Tarquins are not less characteristic.
Their despotic rule and splendour contrast with
the primitive simplicity of the native kings. Only Etruscan
builders, under the direction of wealthy and powerful Etruscan
lords, could have built the great cloaca, the Servian wall, or the
Capitoline temple,—monuments which challenged comparison
with those of the emperors themselves. Nor do the traces of
Greek influence upon Rome during this period[48] conflict with the
theory of an Etruscan supremacy; on the contrary, it is at
least possible that it was thanks to the extended rule and wide
connexions of her Etruscan rulers that Rome was first brought
into direct contact with the Greeks, who had long traded with
the Etruscan ports and influenced Etruscan
culture.[49]

The Etruscan princes are represented, not only as having raised
Rome for the time to a commanding position in Latium and lavished
The Servian reforms.
upon the city itself the resources of Etruscan civilization,
but also as the authors of important internal changes.
They are represented as favouring new men at the expense
of the old patrician families, and as reorganizing the Roman army
on a new footing, a policy natural enough in military princes
of alien birth, and rendered possible by the additions which
conquest had made to the original community. From among
the leading families of the conquered Latin states a hundred
new members were admitted to the senate, and these gentes
thenceforth ranked as patrician, and became known as gentesminores.[50] The changes in the army begun, it is said, by the
elder Tarquin and completed by Servius Tullius were more
important. The basis of the primitive military system had
been three tribes, each of which furnished 1000 men to the legion
and 100 to the cavalry.[51] Tarquinius Priscus, we are told,
contemplated the creation of three fresh tribes and three additional
centuries of horsemen with new names,[52] though in face of
the opposition offered by the old families he contented himself
with simply doubling the strength without altering the names
of the old divisions.[53] But the change attributed to Servius
Tullius went far beyond this. His famous distribution of all
freeholders (assidui) into tribes, classes and centuries,[54] though
subsequently adopted with modifications as the basis of the
political system, was at first exclusively military in its nature
and objects.[55] It amounted, in fact, to the formation of a new
and enlarged army on a new footing. In this force, excepting
in the case of the centuries of the horsemen, no regard was paid
either to the old clan divisions or to the semi-religious, semi political
curiae. In its ranks were included all freeholders
within the Roman territory, whether members or not of any
of the old divisions, and the organization of this new army of
assidui was not less independent of the old system with its clannish
and religious traditions and forms. The unit was the centuria
or company of 100 men; the centuriae were grouped in “classes”
and drawn up in the order of the phalanx.[56] The centuries
in front were composed of the wealthier citizens, whose means
enabled them to bear the cost of the complete equipments
necessary for those who were to bear the brunt of the onset.
These centuries formed the first class. Behind them stood the
centuries of the second and third classes, less completely armed,
but making up together with those of the first class the heavy armed
infantry.[57] In the rear were the centuries of the fourth
and fifth classes, recruited from the poorer freeholders, and
serving only as lights armed troops. The entire available body
of freeholders was divided into two equal portions, a reserve
corps of seniores and a corps of juniores for active service.
Each of these corps consisted of 85 centuries for 8500
men, i.e. of two legions of about 4200 men each, the normal
strength of a consular legion under the early
Republic.[58] It
is noticeable also that the heavily-armed centuries of the
three first classes in each of these legions represented a total
of 3000 men, a number which agrees exactly with the number of
heavy-armed troops in the legion as described by Polybius.
Attached to the legions, but not included in them, were the
companies of sappers and trumpeters. Lastly, to the six
centuries of horsemen, which still retained the old tribal names,
twelve more were added as a distinct body, and recruited from
the wealthiest class of citizens.[59] The four “tribes” also
instituted by Servius were probably intended to serve as the
bases for the levy of freeholders for the new
army.[60] As their
names show, they corresponded with the natural local divisions
of the city territory.[61]

The last of these Etruscan lords to rule in Rome was Tarquin
the Proud. He is described as a splendid and despotic monarch.
Fall of the monarchy.
His sway extended over Latium as far south as Circeii.
Aristodemus, tyrant of Cumae, was his ally, and
kinsmen of his own were princes at Collatia, at Gabii,
and at Tusculum. The Volscian highlanders were chastised, and
Signia with its massive walls was built to hold them in check.
In Rome itself the Capitoline temple and the great cloaca
bore witness to his power. But his rule pressed heavily
upon the Romans, and at the last, on the news of the foul
wrong done by his son Sextus to a noble Roman matron,
Lucretia, the indignant people rose in revolt. Tarquin,
who was away besieging Ardea, was deposed; sentence of
exile was passed upon him and upon all his race; and the
people swore that never again should a king rule in Rome.
Freed from the tyrant, they chose for themselves two yearly
magistrates who should exercise the supreme authority, and
thus the Republic of Rome was founded. Three times the
banished Tarquin strove desperately to recover the throne
he had lost. First of all the men of Veii and Tarquinii marched
to his aid, but were defeated in a pitched battle on the Roman
frontier. A year later Lars Porsena, prince of Clusium, at the
head of all the powers of Etruria, appeared before the gates of
Rome, and closely besieged the city, until, moved by the valour
of his foe, he granted honourable terms of peace and
withdrew.[62]
Once again, by Lake Regillus, the Romans fought victoriously
for their liberty against Tarquin's son-in-law Mamilius, prince
of Tusculum, and chief of the Latin name. Mamilius was slain;
Tarquin in despair found a refuge at Cumae, and there soon
afterwards died.

So, in brief, ran the story of the flight of the kings, as it was
told by the chroniclers whose story Livy reports, though with
explicit and repeated notes of reserve. Its details are most
of them fabulous; it is crowded with inconsistencies and
improbabilities; there are no trustworthy dates; the names
even of the chief factors are probably fictitious, and the hand
of the improver, Greek or Roman, is traceable
throughout.[63]
But there is no room for doubting the main facts of the emancipation
of Rome from the rule of alien princes and the final abolition
of the kingly office. (H. F. P.; R. S. C.)

II. The Republic.

Period A: 509-265 B.C.[64](a) The Struggle between the Orders.—It
is characteristic of Rome that the change from monarchy to
245-489 A.U.C.
republic[65] should have been made with the least
possible disturbance of existing forms. The title of king
was retained, though only as that of a priestly officer
(rex sacrorum) to whom some of the religious functions of the
former kings were transferred. The two annually elected consuls, or
praetores,[66] were regarded as joint heirs of the full kingly authority,
and as holding the imperium, and the correlative right of taking
the auspices, by direct transmission from the founder of the city.
They were, it is true, elected or designated by a new assembly,
by the army of landholders voting by their classes and centuries
(comitia centuriata), and to this body was given also the right
of passing laws; nevertheless it was still by a vote of the thirty
curiae (lex curiata) that the supreme authority was formally
conferred on the magistrates chosen by the centuries of landholders,
and both the choice of magistrates and the passing of
laws still required the sanction of the patrician senators (patrumauctoritas).[67] Nor, lastly, were the legal prerogatives of the
senate altered, although it is probable that before long plebeians
were admitted to seats, if not to votes, and though its importance
was gradually increased by the substitution of an annual
magistracy for the lifelong rule of a single king. But the
abolition of the monarchy brought with it a change of the
utmost importance in the actual working of the constitution.
Though the distinction between patricians and plebeians was
at least as old as the state itself, it is not until the establishment
of the Republic that it plays any part in the history of
Rome. No sooner, however, was the overshadowing authority
of the king removed than a struggle commenced between
the two orders which lasted for more than two centuries.
It was in no sense a struggle between a conquering and a
conquered class, or between an exclusive citizen body and an
unenfranchised mass outside its pale. Patricians and plebeians
were equally citizens of Rome, sprung off the same race and
speaking the same tongue (but see above).[68] The former
were the members of those ancient gentes which had possibly
been once the “chiefly” families in the small communities
which preceded the united state, and which claimed by hereditary
right a privileged position in the community. Only patricians
could sit in the council of patres, and hence probably the name
given to their order.[69] To their representatives the supreme
authority reverted on the death of the king; the due transmission
of the auspicia and the public worship of the state
gods were their special care; and to them alone were known
the traditional usages and forms which regulated the life of
the people from day to day. To the plebs (the multitude,
πλῆθος) belonged all who were not members of some patrician
gens, whether independent freemen or attached as
“clients”[70]
to one of the great houses. The plebeian was a citizen, with
civil rights and a vote in the assembly of the curies, but he was
excluded by ancient custom from all share in the higher honours
of the state, and intermarriage with a patrician was not recognized
as a properly legal union[71] (see Patricians).

The revolution which expelled the Tarquins gave the
patricians, who had mainly assisted in bringing it about, an
overwhelming ascendancy in the state. The plebs had indeed
gained something. Not only is it probable that the strictness
of the old tie of clientship had somewhat relaxed, and that
the number of the clientes was smaller and their dependence
on patrician patrons less complete, but the ranks of the plebs
had, under the later kings, been swelled by the admission of
conquered Latins, and the freeholders among these had with
others been enrolled in the Servian tribes, classes and centuries.
The establishment of the Republic invested this military levy
of landholders with political rights as an assembly, for by their
votes the consuls were chosen and laws passed, and it was the
plebeian landholders who formed the main strength of the
plebs in the struggle that followed. But these gains were
greater in appearance than in reality. The plebeian landholders
commanded only a minority of votes in the comitiacenturiata. In their choice of magistrates they were limited
to the patrician candidates nominated by patrician presiding
magistrates, and their choice required confirmation not only
by the older and smaller assembly of the curiae, in which the
patricians and their clients predominated, but also by the
patrician patres. They could only vote on laws proposed by
patrician consuls, and here again the subsequent sanction of the
patres was necessary. The whole procedure of the comitia
was in short absolutely in the hands of their patrician presidents,
and liable to every sort of interruption and suspension
from patrician pontiffs and augurs (for details see further
Comitia and Senate).

But these political disabilities did not constitute the main
grievance of the plebs in the early years of the Republic.
What they fought for was protection for their lives and liberties,
and the object of attack was the despotic authority of the
patrician magistrates. The consuls wielded the full imperium of
the kings, and against this “consular authority” the plebeian,
though a citizen, had no protection and no appeal, nor were
matters improved when for the two consuls was substituted
in some emergency a single, all-powerful, irresponsible
dictator.

The history of this struggle between the orders opens with
a concession made to the plebs by one of the consuls themselves,
Lex Valeria de provocatione.
a concession possibly due to a desire to secure the
allegiance of the plebeian landholders, who formed
the backbone of the army. In the first year of
the Republic, according to the received chronology,
P. Valerius Publicola or Poplicola carried in the comitia centuriata
his famous law of appeal.[72] It enacted that no magistrate,
saving only a dictator, should execute a capital sentence upon
any Roman citizen unless the sentence had been confirmed on
appeal by the assembly of the centuries. But, though the
“right of appeal” granted by this law was justly regarded
in later times as the greatest safeguard of a Roman's liberties,
it was by no means at first so effective a protection as it afterwards
became. For not only was the operation of the law
limited to the bounds of the city, so that the consul in the field
or on the march was left as absolute as before, but no security
was provided for its observance even within the city by consuls
resolved to disregard it.[73]

It was by their own efforts that the plebeians first obtained
any real protection against magisterial despotism. The
The first secession and the tribunate.
traditional accounts of the first secession are confused
and contradictory,[74] but its causes and results are
tolerably clear. The seceders were the plebeian
legionaries recently returned from a victorious
campaign. Indignant at the delay of the promised reforms, they
ignored the order given them to march afresh against Volsci
and Aequi, and instead entrenched themselves on a hill across
the Anio, some 3 m. from Rome, and known afterwards as
the Mons Sacer. The frightened patricians came to terms,
and a solemn agreement (lex sacrata)[75] was concluded between
the orders, by which it was provided that henceforth the
plebeians should have annual magistrates of their own called
tribunes (tribuni plebis), members of their own order, who
should be authorized to protect them against the
consuls,[76] and
a curse was invoked upon the man who should injure or impede
the tribune in the performance of his duties.[77] The number of
tribunes was possibly at first two, then five; before 449 B.C. it
had been raised to ten.

The tribunate is an institution which has no parallel in history.
The tribune was not, and, strictly speaking, never became, a
magistrate of the Roman people. His one proper prerogative
was that of granting protection to the oppressed plebeian against
a patrician officer. This prerogative (jus auxilii) was secured
to him, not by the ordinary constitution, but by a special
compact between the orders, and was protected by the ancient
oath (vetus jusjurandum),[78] which invoked a curse upon the
violator of a tribune. This exceptional and anomalous right
the tribunes could only exercise in person, within the limits of
the “pomoerium,” and against individual acts of magisterial
oppression.[79] It was only gradually that it expanded into a wide
power of interference with the whole machinery of government,
and was supplemented by the legislative powers which rendered
the tribunate of the last century B.C. so formidable (see
Tribune).

But from the first the tribunes were for the plebs not only
protectors but leaders, under whom they organized themselves
Lex Publilia.
in opposition to the patricians. The tribunes convened
assemblies of the plebs (concilia plebis), and carried
resolutions on questions of interest to the order. This incipient
plebeian organization was materially advanced by the Publilian
283.
law of 471 B.C.,[80] which appears to have formally recognized
as lawful the plebeian concilia, and established
also the tribune's right cum plebe agere, i.e. to propose and carry
resolutions in them. These assemblies were tributa, or, in other
words, the voting in them took place not by curies or centuries
but by tribes. In them, lastly, after the Publilian law, if not
before, the tribunes were annually elected.[81] By this law the
foundations were laid both of the powerful concilia plebis of
later days and also of the legislative and judicial prerogatives of
the tribunes. The patricians maintained indeed that resolutions
(plebiscita) carried by tribunes in the concilia plebis were not
binding on their order, but the moral weight of such resolutions,
whether they affirmed a general principle or pronounced sentence
of condemnation on some single patrician, was no doubt
considerable.

The next stage in the struggle is marked by the attempt to
substitute a public written law for unwritten usage.

292.
The proposal of C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B.C.) to
appoint a plebeian commission to draw up laws restricting
the powers of the consuls[82] was resolutely opposed by the patricians.
but after ten years of bitter party strife a compromise was
effected. A commission of ten patricians was appointed, who
The Decemvirate.
should frame and publish a code of law binding equally
on both the orders. These decemviri were to be the
sole and supreme magistrates for the year, and the law
of appeal was suspended in their favour.[83] The code which they
promulgated, the famous XII. Tables, owed little of its importance
to any novelties or improvements contained in its provisions.
For the most part it seems merely to have reaffirmed existing
usages and laws (see Roman Law). But it imposed, as it was intended
to do, a check on the arbitrary administration of justice by
the magistrates. With the publication of the code the proper
work of the decemvirs was finished; nevertheless, for the next
year a fresh decemvirate was elected, and it is conceivable that
the intention was permanently to substitute government by
an irresponsible patrician “council of ten” for the old
constitution.[84]
However this may have been, the tyranny of the
decemvirs themselves was fatal to the continuance of their
power. We are told of a second secession of the plebs, this time
to the Janiculum, and of negotiations with the senate, the
result of which was the enforced abdication of the decemvirs.
The plebs joyfully chose for themselves tribunes, and in the
comitia centuriata two consuls were created. But this restoration
of the old régime was accompanied by legislation which
Valerio-Horatian laws.
made it an important crisis in the history of the
struggle between the orders. With the fall of the
decemvirate this struggle enters upon a new phase.
The tribunes appear as at once more powerful and more strictly
constitutional magistrates; the plebeian concilia take their
place by the side of the older assemblies; and finally this improved
machinery is used not simply in self-defence against
patrician oppression but to obtain complete political equality.
This change was no doubt due in part to circumstances outside
legislation, above all to the expansion of the Roman state,
which swelled the numbers and added to the social importance
of the plebs as compared with the dwindling forces of the close
corporation of patrician gentes. Still the legislation of 449
clearly involved more than a restoration of the old form of
government. The Valerio-Horatian laws, besides reaffirming
the right of appeal and the inviolability of the tribunes, improved
the position of the plebeian assemblies by enacting
that plebiscita passed in them, and, as seems probable, approved
by the patres, should be binding on patricians as well as
plebeians.[85]
By this law the tribunes obtained a recognized initiative in
legislation. Henceforth the desired reforms were introduced
and carried by tribunes in what were now styled comitiatributa, and, if sanctioned by the patres, became laws of the
state. From this period, too, must be dated the legalization
at any rate of the tribune's right to impeach any citizen before
the assembly of the tribes.[86] Henceforward there is no question
of the tribune's right to propose to the plebs to impose a fine,
or of the validity of the sentence when passed. The efficiency
of these new weapons of attack was amply proved by the subsequent
course of the struggle. Only a few years after the Valerio-Horatian
legislation came the lex Canuleia, itself a plebiscitumLex Canuleia. 309.
(445 B.C.), by which mixed marriages between patricians
and plebeians were declared lawful, and the social Canuleia.
exclusiveness of the patriciate broken down. In the
same year with this measure, and like it in the interests primarily
of the wealthier plebeians, a vigorous attack commenced on the
Leges Liciniae Sextiae. 387.
patrician monopoly of the consulate, and round this
stronghold of patrician ascendancy the conflict raged
until the passing of the Licinian laws in 367. The
original proposal of the tribune Gaius Canuleius, in
445, that the people should be allowed to elect a plebeian consul
was evaded by a compromise. The senate resolved that for
the next year, in the stead of consuls, six military tribunes
with consular-powers should be elected,[87] and that the new
office should be open to patricians and plebeians alike. The
consulship was thus for the time saved from pollution, as the
patricians phrased it, but the growing strength of the plebs is
shown by the fact that in fifty years out of the seventy-eight
310-88.
between 444 and 366 they succeeded in obtaining the
election of consular tribunes rather than of consuls.
Despite, however, these discouragernents, the patricians fought
on. Each year they strove to secure the creation of consuls rather
than consular tribunes, and failing this strained every nerve to
secure for their own order at least a majority among the latter.
319.
Even the institution of the censorship (435), though
rendered desirable by the increasing importance and
complexity of the census, was, it is probable, due in part to their
desire to discount beforehand the threatened loss of the consulship
by diminishing its powers.[88] Other causes, too, helped to
protract the struggle. Between the wealthier plebeians, who
were ambitious of high office, and the poorer, whose minds were
set rather on allotments of land, there was a division of interest
of which the patricians were not slow to take advantage, and
to this must be added the pressure of war. The death struggle
with Veii and the sack of Rome by the Gauls absorbed for the
377.
time all the energies of the community. In 377,
however, two of the tribunes, C. Licinius Stolo (see
Licinius Stolo, Gaius) and L. Sextius, came forward with proposals which
united all sections of the plebs in their support. Their proposals
were as follows:[89] (1) that consuls and not consular tribunes
be elected; (2) that one consul at least should be a plebeian;
(3) that the priestly college, which had the charge of the
Sibylline books, should consist of ten members instead of
two, and that of these half should be plebeians; (4) that no
single citizen should hold in occupation more than 500 acres
of the common lands, or pasture upon them more than 100 head
of cattle and 500 sheep; (5) that all landowners should employ
a certain amount of free as well as slave labour on their estates;
(6) that interest already paid on debts should be deducted
from the principal, and the remainder paid off in three years.
The three last proposals were obviously intended to meet the
demands of the poorer plebeians, and to secure their support
for the first half of the scheme. Ten years of bitter conflict
387.
followed, but at last, in 367 B.C., the Licinian rotations
became law, and one of their authors, L. Sextius, was
created the first plebeian consul. For the moment it was some
consolation to the patricians that they not only succeeded in
detaching from the consulship the administration of civil law,
which was entrusted to a separate officer, praetor urbanus, to
be elected by the comitia of the centuries, with an understanding
apparently that he should be a patrician, but also obtained
the institution of two additional aediles (aediles curules), who
were in like manner to be members of their own
order.[90] With
the opening of the consulship, however, the issue of the long contest
was virtually decided, and the next eighty years witnessed
a rapid succession of plebeian victories. Now that a plebeian
Opening of the magistracies.

398. 404.

417. 454.
consul might preside at the elections, the main difficulty
in the way of the nomination and election of plebeian
candidates was removed. The proposed patrician
monopoly of the new curule aedileship was almost
instantly abandoned. In 356 the first plebeian
was made dictator; in 350 the censorship, and in
337 the praetorship were filled for the first time by
plebeians; and lastly, in 300, by the lex Ogulnia, even
the sacred colleges of the pontiffs and augurs, the old
strongholds of patrician supremacy, were thrown open to the
plebs.[91] The patricians lost also the control they had exercised
so long over the action of the people in assembly. The patrumauctoritas, the sanction given or refused by the patrician
senators to laws and to elections, had hitherto been a powerful
415. Publilian laws.
weapon in their hands. But in 339 a law of Q. Publilius
Philo, a plebeian dictator, enacted that this sanction
should be given beforehand to laws enacted in the
comitia centuriata,[92] and a lex Maenia of uncertain date extended
the rule to elections in the same assembly. Livy ascribes
to the same Publilius a law emancipating the concilium plebisLex Hortensia, 467.
from the control of the patres; but this seems in reality
to have been effected by the famous lex Hortensia,
carried by another plebeian dictator.[93] Henceforward
the patrum auctoritas sank into a meaningless form, though as
such it still survived in the time of Livy. From 287 onwards
it is certain that measures passed by the plebs, voting by their
tribes, had the full force of laws without any further conditions
whatsoever. The legislative independence of the plebeian
assembly was secured, and with this crowning victory ended
the long struggle between the orders.

(b) Conquest of Italy.—Twelve years after the passing of the
lex Hortensia, King Pyrrhus, beaten at Beneventum, withdrew
from Italy, and Rome was left mistress of the peninsula. The
steps by which this supremacy had been won have now to be
traced.[94]

The expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, followed as it
seems to have been by the emancipation from Etruscan supremacy
of all the country between the Tiber and the Liris, entirely
altered the aspect of affairs. North of the Tiber the powerful
Etruscan city, of Veii, after aivain attempt to restore, the Tarquins,
relapsed into an attitude of sullen hostility towards Rome,
347.
which, down to the outbreak of the final struggle in
407, found vent in constant and harassing border
forays. The Sabines recommenced their raids across the Anio;
from their hills to the south-east the Aequi pressed forward as
far as the eastern spurs of the Alban range, and ravaged the low
country between that range and the Sabine mountains; the
Volsci overran the coast-lands as far as Antium, established
themselves
at Velitrae and even wasted the fields within a few miles
of Rome. But the good fortune of Rome did not leave her to
face these foes single-handed, and it is a significant
League with the Latins and Etruscans. 261.
fact that the history of the Roman advance begins,
not with a brilliant victory, but with a timely alliance.
According to Livy, it was in 493, only a few years after
the defeat of the prince of Tusculum at Lake Regillus,
that a treaty was concluded between Rome and the Latin
communities of the Campagna.[95] The alliance was in every respect
natural. The Latins were the near neighbours and kinsmen of
the Romans, and both Romans and Latins were just freed from
Etruscan rule to find themselves as lowlanders and dwellers in
towns face to face with a common foe in the ruder hill tribes on
their borders. The exact terms of the treaty cannot, any more
than the precise circumstances under which it was concluded,
be stated with certainty (see Latium), but two points seem
clear. There was at first a genuine equality in the relations
between the allies; Romans and Latins, though combining for
defence and offence, did so without sacrificing their separate
freedom of action, even in the matter of waging wars independently
of each other.[96] But, secondly, Rome enjoyed from the
first one inestimable advantage. The Latins lay between her
and the most active of her foes, the Aequi and Volsci, and served
to protect her territories at the expense of their own. Behind
this barrier Rome grew strong, and the close of the Aequian and
Volscian wars left the Latins her dependents rather than her
allies. Beyond the limits of the Campagna. Rome found a
second ally, hardly less useful than the Latins, in the tribe of
the Hernici (“the men of the rocks”), in the valley of the
Trerus, who had equal reason with the Romans and Latins to
dread the Volsci and Aequi, while their position midway between
the two latter peoples made them valuable auxiliaries to the
lowlanders of the Campagna.

The treaty with the Hernici is said to have been concluded
in 486,[97] and the confederacy of the three peoples—Romans,
Latins and Hernicans—lasted down to the
268. 414.
great Latin war in 340. Confused and untrustworthy
as are the chronicles of the early wars of Rome, it is
clear that, notwithstanding the acquisition of these allies, Rome
made but little way against her foes during the first fifty years
280.
of the existence of the Republic. In 474, it is true, an
end was put for a time to the harassing border feud
with Veii by a forty years' peace, an advantage due not so much
to Roman valour as to the increasing dangers from other
quarters which were threatening the Etruscan
states.[98] But
305.
this partial success stands alone, and down to 449 the
raids of Sabines, Aequi and Volsci continue without
intermission, and are occasionally carried up to the very walls
of Rome.

Very different is the impression left by the annals of the next
305-64.

Capture of Veii. 358.
sixty years (449-390). During this period there is an
unmistakable development of Roman power on all
sides. In southern Etruria the capture of Veii (396)
virtually gave Rome the mastery as far as the Ciminian
forest. Sutrium and Nepete, “the gates of Etruria,”
became her allies and guarded her interests against
any attack from the Etruscan communities to the north, while
along the Tiber valley her suzerainty was acknowledged as
far as Capena and Falerii. On the Anio frontier we hear of no
disturbances from 449 until some ten years after the sack of
308.

336.
Rome by the Gauls. In 446 the Aequi appear for
the last time before the gates of Rome. After 418
they disappear from Mount Algidus, and in the same
year the communications of Rome and Latium with
the Hernici in the Trerus valley were secured by the capture and
colonization of Labicum. Successive invasions, too, broke the
361.
strength of the Volsci, and in 393 a Latin colony was
founded as far south as Circeii. In part, no doubt,
these Roman successes were due to the improved condition of
affairs in Rome itself, consequent upon the great reforms carried
304-312.

Decline of Etruscan power.
between 450 and 442; but it is equally, certain that
now, as often afterwards, fortune befriended Rome by
weakening, or by diverting the attention of, her opponents. In
particular, her rapid advance in southern Etruria was
facilitated by the heavy blows indicted upon the
Etruscans during the 5th century B.C. by Celts, Greeks
and Samnites. By the close of this century the Celts
had expelled them from the rich plains of what was afterwards
known as Cisalpine Gaul, and were even threatening to advance
across the Apennines into Etruria proper. The Sicilian Greeks,
headed by the tyrants of Syracuse, wrested from them their
mastery of the seas, and finally, on the capture of Capua by the
331.
Samnites in 423, they lost their possessions in the fertile
Campanian plain. These conquests of the Samnites
were part of a great southward movement of the highland
Sabellian peoples, the immediate effects of which upon the
fortunes of Rome were not confined to the weakening of the
Etruscan power. It is probable that the cessation of the Sabine
raids across the Anio was partly due to the new outlets which were
opened southwards for the restless and populous hill tribes which
had so long disturbed the peace of the Latin lowlands. We may
conjecture, also, that the growing feebleness exhibited by Volsci
and Aequi was in some measure caused by the pressure upon
their rear of the Sabellian clans which at this time established
themselves near the Fucine lake and along the course of the Liris.

But in 390, only six years after the great victory over her
ancient rival Veii, the Roman advance was for a moment
Sack of Rome by the Gauls. 363.
checked by a disaster which threatened to alter the
course of history in Italy, and which left a lasting
impress on the Roman mind. In 391 a Celtic horde
left their newly won lands on the Adriatic, and, crossing
the Apennines into Etruria, laid siege to the Etruscan
city of Clusium (Chiusi). Thence, provoked, it is said, by the
conduct of the Roman ambassadors, who, forgetting their
sacred character, had fought in the ranks of Clusium and slain a
Celtic chief, the barbarians marched upon Rome. On July the
364.
18th of 390 B.C., only a few miles from Rome, was
fought the disastrous battle of the Allia. The defeat
of the Romans was complete, and Rome lay at the mercy of her
foe. But in characteristic fashion the Celts halted three days to
enjoy the fruits of victory, and time was thus given to put the
Capitol at least in a state of defence. The arrival of the barbarians
was followed by the sack of the city, but the Capitol
remained impregnable. For seven months they besieged it,
and then in as sudden a fashion as they had come they disappeared.
The Roman chroniclers explain their retreat in their
own way, by the fortunate appearance of M. Furius Camillus
with the troops which he had collected, at the very moment
when famine had forced the garrison on the Capitol to accept
terms. More probably the news that their lands across the
Apennines were threatened by the Veneti, coupled with the
unaccustomed tedium of a long siege and the difficulty of obtaining
supplies, inclined the Celts to accept readily a heavy ransom
as the price of their withdrawal. But, whatever the reason,
it is certain that they retreated, and, though during the next
fifty years marauding bands appeared at intervals in the neighbourhood
of Rome, and even once penetrated as far south as
393-94.
Campania (361-60), the Celts never obtained any
footing in Italy outside the plains in the north which
they had made their own.

Nor, in spite of the defeat on the Allia and the sack of the city,
was Rome weakened except for the moment by the Celtic
Annexation of southern Etruria.
attack. The storm passed away as rapidly as it had
come on. The city was hastily rebuilt, and Rome
dismayed the enemies who hastened to take advantage
of her misfortunes by her undiminished vigour. Her
conquests in southern Etruria were successfully defended
against repeated attacks from the Etruscans to the north. The
367.
creation in 387 of four new tribes (Stellatina, Sabatina,
Tromentina, Arnensis) marked the final annexation of
the territory of Veii and of the lands lying along the Tiber valley.
A few years later Latin colonies were established at Sutrium
and Nepete for the more effectual defence of the frontier, and
401.
finally, in 353, the subjugation of South Etruria was
completed, by the submission of Caere (q.v.) and its
partial incorporation with the Roman state as a “municipium
sine suffragio”—the first, it is said, of its
kind.[99]

Next to the settlement of southern Etruria, the most important
of the successes gained by Rome between 390 and
Successes against Aequi and Volsci. 364-411. 365. 450.
343 B.C. were those won against her old foes the Aequi
and Volsci, and her old allies the Latins and Hernicans.
The Aequi indeed, already weakened by their long
feud with Rome, and hard pressed by the Sabellian
tribes in their rear, were easily dealt with, and after
the campaign of 389 we have no further mention of
an Aequian war until the last Aequian rising in 304.
The Volsci, who in 389 had advanced to Lanuvium,
were met and utterly defeated by Camillus, the conqueror of
Veii, and this victory was followed up by the gradual
subjugation to Rome of all the lowland country lying between the
hills and the sea as far south as Tarracina. Latin colonies
369, 375. 406, 396.
were established at Satricum (385), at Setia (379), and
at Antium and Tarracina some time before 348. In
358 two fresh Roman tribes (Pomptina and Publilia)
were formed in the same district.[100]

Rome had now nothing more to fear from the foes who a
century ago had threatened her very existence. The lowland
Reorganization of the Latin league.
country, of which she was the natural centre, from
the Cimmian forest to Tarracina, was quiet, and
within its limits Rome was by far the strongest power.
But she had now to reckon with the old and faithful
allies to whose loyal aid her present position was
largely due. The Latini and Hernici had suffered severely in the
Aequian and Volscian wars; it is probable that not a few
of the smaller communities included in the league had either
been destroyed or been absorbed by larger states, and the
independence of all alike was threatened by the growing power
of Rome. The sack of Rome by the Celts gave them an opportunity
of reasserting their independence, and we are consequently
told that this disaster was immediately followed by
the temporary dissolution of the confederacy, and this again
a few years later by a series of actual conflicts between Rome
371-96.

372. 396.
and her former allies. Between 383 and 358 we hear
of wars with Tibur, Praeneste, Tusculum, Lanuvium,
Circeii and the Hernici. But in all Rome was successful. In
382 Tusculum was fully incorporated with the Roman
state by the bestowal of the full franchise;[101] in 358,
according to both Livy and Polybius, the old alliance
was formally renewed with Latini and Hernici. We cannot,
however, be wrong in assuming that the position of the allies
under the new league was far inferior to that accorded them
by the treaty of Spurius Cassius.[102] Henceforth they were the
subjects rather than the equals of Rome, a position which it is evident
that they accepted much against their will, and from
which they were yet to make one last effort to escape.

We have now reached the close of the first stage in Rome's
advance towards supremacy in Italy. By 343 B.C. she was
411.
already mistress both of the low country stretching
from the Ciminian forest to Tarracina and Circeii and
of the bordering highlands. Her own territory had largely
increased. Across the Tiber the lands of Veii, Capena and
Caere were nearly all Roman, while in Latium she had carried
her frontiers to Tusculum on the Alban range and to the
southernmost limits of the Pomptine district. And this territory
was protected by a circle of dependent allies and colonies reaching
northward to Sutrium and Nepete, and southward to Sora
on the upper Liris, and to Circeii on the coast. Already, too,
she was, beginning to be recognized as a power outside the
limits of the Latin lowlands. The fame of the capture of Rome
by the Celts had reached Athens, and her subsequent victories
over marauding Celtic bands had given her prestige in South
400. 404.
Italy as a bulwark against northern barbarians. In
354 she had formed her first connexions beyond the
Liris by a treaty with the Samnites, and in 348 followed
a far more important treaty with the great maritime state of
Carthage.[103]

Rome had won her supremacy from the Ciminian forest to
the Liris as the champion of the comparatively civilized
Advance beyond the Liris, and the Samnite Wars.
communities of the lowlands against the rude highland
tribes which threatened to overrun them, and so, when
her legions first crossed the Liris, it was in answer to
an appeal from a lowland city against invaders from
the hills. While she was engaged in clearing Latium
of Volsci and Aequi, the Sabellian tribes of the central
Apennines had rapidly spread over the southern half of the
peninsula. Foremost among these tribes were the Samnites,
a portion of whom had captured the Etruscan city of Capua in
331, 334.
423, the Greek Cumae in 420, and had since then ruled
as masters over the fertile Campanian territory. But
in their new homes the conquerors soon lost all sense of relationship
and sympathy with their highland brethren. They
dwelt in cities, amassed wealth, and inherited the civilization
of the Greeks and Etruscans whom they had
dispossessed;[104]
above all, they had before long to defend themselves in their
turn against the attacks of their ruder kinsmen from the hills,
and it was for aid against these that the Samnites of Campania
appealed to the rising state which had already made herself
known as the bulwark of the lowlands north of the Liris, and
which with her Latin and Hernican allies had scarcely less
interest than the Campanian cities themselves in checking the
raids of the highland Samnite tribes.

The Campanian appeal was listened to. Rome with her
confederates entered into alliance with Capua and the
First Samnite War. 411.
neighbouring Campanian towns, and war was formally
declared (343) against the Samnites.[105] While to the
Latins and Hernicans was entrusted apparently the
defence of Latium and the Hernican valley against
the northerly members of the Samnite confederacy, the Romans
themselves undertook the task of driving the invaders out of
Campania. After two campaigns the war was ended in
413.
341 by a treaty, and the Samnites withdrew from the
lowlands, leaving Rome the recognized suzerain of the
Campanian cities which had sought her aid.[106]

There is no doubt that the check thus given by Rome to the
advance of the hitherto invincible Sabellian highlanders not
only made her the natural head and champion of the low
countries, south as well as north of the Liris, but also considerably
added to her prestige. Carthage sent her congratulations;
and the Etruscan city of Falerii voluntarily enrolled herself
among the allies of Rome. Of even greater service, however,
was the fact that for fifteen years the Samnites remained quiet,
for this inactivity, whatever its cause, enabled Rome triumphantly
to surmount a danger which threatened for the moment
to wreck her whole position. This danger was nothing less
than a desperate effort on the part of nearly all her allies and
dependants south of the Tiber to throw off the yoke of her supremacy.
The Latin War.
The way was led by her ancient confederates
the Latini, whose smouldering discontent broke into
open flame directly the fear of a Samnite attack was
removed. From the Latin Campagna and the Sabine hills
the revolt spread westward and southward to Antium and
Tarracina, and even to the towns of the Campanian plain,
where the mass of the inhabitants at once repudiated the
alliance formed with Rome by the ruling class. The struggle
was sharp but short. In two pitched battles[107] the strength of
the insurrection was broken, and two more campaigns sufficed
for the complete reduction of such of the insurgent communities
as still held out. The revolt crushed, Rome set herself deliberately
to the task of re-establishing on a new and firmer
Settlement of Latium;
basis her supremacy over the lowlands, and in doing
so laid the foundations of that marvellous organization
which was destined to spread rapidly over Italy,
and to withstand the attacks even of Hannibal. The old
historic Latin league ceased to exist, though its memory was
still preserved by the yearly Latin festival on the Alban Mount;
Most if not all of the common land of the league became Roman
territory,[108] five at least of the old Latin cities were compelled
to accept the Roman franchise[109] and enter the pale of the Roman
state. The rest, with the Latin colonies, were ranked as Latin
allies of Rome, but on terms which secured their complete
dependence upon the sovereign city. The policy of isolation,
which became so cardinal a principle of Roman rule, was now
first systematically applied. No rights of conubium or
commercium were any longer to exist between these communities.
Their federal councils were prohibited, and all federal action
independent of Rome forbidden.[110]

In Campania and the coast-lands connecting Campania with
Rome, a policy of annexation was considered safer than that
and of Campania.
of alliance. Of the two frontier posts of the Volsci,
Antium and Velitrae, the former was constituted a
Roman colony, its long galleys burnt and their
prows set up in the Forum at Rome, while the walls of
Velitrae were razed to the ground, its leading men banished
beyond the Tiber, and their lands given to Roman settlers.
Farther south on the route to Campania, Fundi and Formiae
were, after the precedent set in the case of Caere, declared
Roman and granted the civil rights of Roman citizenship, while
lastly in Campania itself the same status was given to Capua,
Cumae, and the smaller communities dependent upon
them.[111]416-26. 424.
During the ten years from 338 to 328 the work of
settlement was steadily continued. Tarracina, like
Antium, was made a Roman colony. Privernum, the last
Volscian town to offer resistance to Rome, was subdued
in 330, part of its territory allotted to Roman citizens,
and the state itself forced to accept the Roman franchise.
Lastly, to strengthen the lines of defence against the Sabellian
tribes, two colonies with the rights of Latin allies were established
420, 426.
at Cales (334) and at Fregellae (328). The
settlement of the lowlands was accomplished. As a
single powerful and compact state with an outer circle of
closely dependent allies, Rome now stood in sharp contrast
with the disunited and degenerate cities of northern Etruria,
the loosely organized tribes of the Apennines, and the decaying
and disorderly Greek towns of the south.

The strength of this system was now to be tried by struggle
with the one Italian people who were still ready and able to
Second Samnite War, 327-04 = 427-50. 412-27. 422. 427.
contest with Rome the supremacy of the peninsula.
The passive attitude of the Samnites between 342 and
327 was no doubt largely due to the dangers which
had suddenly threatened them in South Italy; But
the death of Alexander of Epirus, in 332,[112] removed
their only formidable opponent there, and left them
free to turn their attention to the necessity of checking the
steady advance of Rome. In 327, the year after the
ominous foundation of a Roman colony at Fregellae,
a pretext for renewing the struggle was offered them. The
Cumaean colony of Palaepolis[113] had incurred the wrath of
Rome by its raids into her territory in Campania. The Samnites
sent a force to defend it, and Rome replied by a declaration
of war. The two opponents were not at first sight unequally
matched, and had the Sabellian tribes held firmly together the
issue of the struggle might have been different. As it was,
however, the Lucanians to the south actually joined Rome
from the first, while the northern clans, Marsi, Vestini, Paeligni,
Frentani, after a feeble and lukewarm resistance, subsided into
450.
a neutrality which was exchanged in 304 for a formal
alliance with Rome. An even greater advantage to
Rome from the outset was the enmity existing between the
Samnites and the Apulians, the latter of whom from the first
joined Rome and thus gave her a position in the rear of
her enemy and in a country eminently well fitted for
maintaining a large military force. These weaknesses on the
Samnite side were amply illustrated by the events of the
war.

The first seven or eight years were marked by one serious
disaster to the Roman arms, the defeat at the Caudine Forks
433, 436.
(321), but, when in 318 the Samnites asked for
and obtained a two years' truce, Rome had succeeded
not only in inflicting several severe blows upon
her enemies but in isolating them from outside help. The
Lucanians to the south were her allies. To the east, in the rear
of Samnium, Apulia acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome, and
434. 438.
Luceria, captured in 320, had been established as a base
of Roman operations. Finally to the north the Romans
had easily overcome the feeble resistance of the Vestini and
Frentani, and secured through their territories a safe passage
for their legions to Apulia. On the renewal of hostilities in
316, the Samnites, bent on escaping from the net which
was being slowly drawn round them, made a series of
desperate efforts to break through the lines of defence which
protected Latium and Campania. Sora and Fregellae on the
upper Liris were captured by a sudden attack; the Ausones
in the low country near the mouth of the same river were
encouraged to revolt by the appearance of the Samnite army;
and in Campania another army, attracted by rumours of
disturbance, all but defeated the Roman consuls under the very
walls of Capua. But these efforts were unavailing. Sora and
Fregellae were recovered as quickly as they had been lost, and
the frontier there was strengthened by the establishment of
a colony at Interamna. The Ausones were punished by the
confiscation of their territory, and Roman supremacy further
secured by the two colonies of Suessa and Pontia (312). The
construction of the famous Via Appia,[114] the work of the censor
Appius Claudius Caecus, opened a safe and direct route to
Campania, while the capture of Nola deprived the Samnites of
their last important stronghold in the Campanian lowlands.
The failure of these attempts broke the courage even of the Samnites.
Their hopes were indeed raised for a moment by the news
that Etruria had risen against Rome (310), but their daring
scheme of effecting a union with the Etruscans was frustrated
449. 450.
by the energy of the Roman generals. Five years
later (305) the Romans revenged a Samnite raid into
Campania by an invasion of Samnium itself. Arpinum on
the frontier was taken, and at last, after a twenty-two
years' struggle, the Second Samnite War was
closed by a renewal of the ancient treaty with
Rome (304).[115]

The six years' of peace which followed (304-298) were
employed by Rome in still further strengthening her position.
450-56.
Already, two years before the peace, a rash revolt of
the Hernici[116] had given Rome a pretext for finally
annexing the territory of her ancient allies. The tribal confederacy
was broken up, and all the Hernican communities,
with the exception of three which had not joined the revolt,
were incorporated with the Roman state as municipia, with the
civil rights of the Roman franchise. Between the Hernican
valley and the frontiers of the nearest Sabellian tribes lay what
remained of the once formidable people of the Aequi. In
450.

453.
their case, too, a revolt (304) was followed by the
annexation of their territory, which was marked in this
case by the formation there (301) of two Roman tribes
(Aniensis and Teretina).[117] Not content with thus carrying the
borders of their own territory up to the very frontiers of the
Sabellian country, Rome succeeded (304) in finally detaching
from the Sabellian Confederacy all the tribes lying[118] between
the north-east frontier of Latium and the Adriatic Sea.
Henceforward the Marsi, Paeligni, Vestini, Marrucini and
Frentani were enrolled among the allies of Rome, and not
only swelled her forces in the field but interposed a useful
barrier between her enemies to the north in Etruria and Umbria
and those to the south in Samnium, while they connected her
directly with the friendly Apulians. Lastly, as a security for
the fidelity at least of the nearest of these allies, colonies
were planted in the Marsian territories at Alba Fucentia
451, 456. 452.
(303) and at Carsioli (298). A significant indication
of the widening range of Rome's influence in Italy,
and of the new responsibilities rapidly pressing upon her,
is the fact that when in 302 the Spartan Cleonymus
landed in the territory of the Sallentini, far away
in the south-east, he was met and repulsed by a Roman
force.[119]

Six years after the conclusion of the treaty which ended
the Second Samnite War, news arrived that the Samnites were
harassing the Lucanians. Rome at once interfered to
Third Samnite War, 298-90 = 456-64.
protect her allies. Samnium was invaded in force,
the country ravaged and one stronghold after another
captured. Unable any longer to hold their own in a
position where they were hedged round by enemies,
the Samnite leaders turned as a last hope to the communities
of northern Etruria, to the free tribes of Umbria
and to the once dreaded Celts. With a splendid daring they
formed the scheme of uniting all these peoples with themselves
in a last desperate effort to break the power of
Rome.

For some forty years after the final annexation of
southern Etruria (351 B.C.) matters had remained unchanged
Romans in N. Ertruria. 403. 443.
in that quarter. Sutrium and Nepete still guarded Romans
the Roman frontier; the natural boundary of the
Ciminian forest was still intact; and up the valley of
the Tiber Rome had not advanced beyond Falerii, a
few miles short of the most southerly Umbrian town Ocriculum.
But in 311, on the expiry, apparently of the long
truce with Rome, concluded in 351, the northern
Etruscans, alarmed no doubt by the rapid advances which Rome
was making farther south, rose in arms and attacked Sutrium.
The attack, however, recoiled disastrously upon the heads
of the assailants. A Roman force promptly relieved Sutrium,
and its leader, Q. Fabius Rullianus, without awaiting orders
from home, boldly plunged into the wilds of the Ciminian forest,
and crossing them safely swept with fire and sword over the
rich lands to the north. Then turning southward he met and
utterly defeated the forces which the Etruscans had hastily raised
in the hopes of intercepting him at the Vadimonian
Lake.[120]
This decisive victory ended the war. The Etruscan cities, disunited
among themselves, and enervated by long years of peace,
abandoned the struggle for the time, paid a heavy indemnity
445-46.
and concluded a truce with Rome (309-8). In the
same year the promptitude of Fabius easily averted
a threatened attack by the Umbrians, but Rome proceeded
nevertheless to fortify herself in her invariable fashion against
future dangers on this side, by an alliance with Ocriculum,
which was followed ten years later (299) by a colony at Nequinum,[121]
and an alliance with the Picentes, whose position in the rear
of Umbria rendered them as valuable to Rome as the Apulians
had proved farther south.

Fourteen years had passed since the battle on the Vadimonian
Lake, when the Samnites appeared on the borders of Etruria and
Battle of Sentinum, 295 = 459.
called on the peoples of northern Italy to rise against
the common enemy. Their appeal, backed by the
presence of their troops, was successful. The Etruscans
found courage to face the Roman legions once more;
a few of the Umbrians joined them; but the most valuable
allies to the Samnites were the Celts, who had for some time
threatened a raid across the Apennines, and who now marched
eagerly into Umbria and joined the coalition. The news that
the Celts were in motion produced a startling effect at Rome,
and every nerve was strained to meet this new danger. While
two armies were left in southern Etruria as reserves, the two
consuls, Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and P. Decius Mus the
younger, both tried soldiers, marched northwards up the valley
of the Tiber and into Umbria at the head of four Roman legions
and a still larger force of Italian allies. At Sentinum, on the
further side of the Apennines, they encountered the united
forces of the Celts and Samnites, the Etruscans and Umbrians
having, it is said, been withdrawn for the defence of their own
homes. The battle that followed was desperate, and the
Romans lost one of their consuls, Decius, and more than 8000
men.[122] But the Roman victory was decisive. The Celts were
annihilated, and the fear of a second Celtic attack on Rome
removed. All danger from the coalition was over. The
Etruscan communities gladly purchased peace by the payment
of indemnities. The rising in Umbria, never formidable, died
away, and the Samnites were left single-handed to bear the
whole weight of the wrath of Rome. During four years
more, however, they desperately defended their highland
461, 462. 464.
homes, and twice at least, in 293 and 292, they
managed to place in the field a force sufficient to
meet the Roman legions on equal terms. At last,
in 290, the consul M'.Curius Dentatus finally exhausted
their power of resistance. Peace was concluded, and
it is significant of the respect inspired at Rome by their
indomitable courage that they were allowed to become the
allies of Rome, on equal terms and without any sacrifice of
independence.[123]

Between the close of the Third Samnite War and the landing
473. 464. 469-71.
of Pyrrhus in 281 B.C. we find Rome engaged, as
her wont was, in quietly extending and consolidating
her power. In southern Italy she strengthened her hold on
Apulia by planting on the borders of Apulia and Lucania the
strong colony of Venusia.[124] In central Italy the annexation
of the Sabine country (290) carried her frontiers
eastward to the borders of her Picentine allies on the
Adriatic.[125] Farther east, in the territory of the Picentes themselves,
she established colonies on the Adriatic coast at Hadria
and Castrum (285-83).[126] North of the Picentes lay
the territories of the Celtic Senones stretching inland
to the north-east borders of Etruria, and these too now fell into
her hands. Ten years after their defeat at Sentinum (285-84)
a Celtic force descended into Etruria, besieged Arretium
and defeated the relieving force dispatched by Rome. In
283 the consul L. Cornelius Dolabella was sent to avenge
the insult. He completely routed the Senones. Their lands
were annexed by Rome, and a colony established at Sena
on the coast. This success, followed as it was by the
decisive defeat of the neighbouring tribe of the Boii, who
had invaded Etruria and penetrated as far south as the
Vadimonian Lake, awed the Celts into quiet, and for more
than forty years there was comparative tranquillity in northern
Italy.[127]

In the south, however, the claims of Rome to supremacy
were now to be disputed by a new and formidable foe. At
War with Pyrrhus, 281-75 = 473-79.
the close of the Third Samnite War the Greek cities
on the southern coast of Italy found themselves once
more harassed by the Sabellian tribes on their borders,
whose energies, no longer absorbed by the long struggles
in central Italy, now found an attractive opening southward.
Naturally enough the Greeks, like the Capuans sixty years
471-72.
before, appealed for aid to Rome (283-82), and like
the Capuans they offered in return to recognize the
suzerainty of the great Latin Republic. In reply a Roman
force under C. Fabricius Luscinus marched into south Italy,
easily routed the marauding bands of Lucanians, Bruttians and
Samnites, and established Roman garrisons in Locri, Croton,
Rhegium and Thurii. At Tarentum, the most powerful and
flourishing of the Greek seaports, this sudden and rapid advance
of Rome excited the greatest anxiety. Tarentum was already
453.
allied by treaty (301) with Rome, and she had now
to decide whether this treaty should be exchanged
for one which would place her, like the other Greek communities,
under the protectorate of Rome, or whether she should find
some ally able and willing to assist in making a last stand for
independence. The former course, in Tarentum, as before at
Capua, was the one favoured by the aristocratic party; the
latter was eagerly supported by the mass of the people and their
leaders. While matters were still in suspense, the appearance,
contrary to the treaty, of a Roman squadron off the harbour
decided the controversy. The Tarentines, indignant at the
insult, attacked the hostile fleet, killed the admiral and sunk
most of the ships. Still Rome, relying probably on her partisans
in the city, tried negotiation, and an alliance appeared likely
after all, when suddenly the help for which the Tarentine democrats
473-74.
had been looking appeared, and war with Rome
was resolved upon (281-80).[128]

King Pyrrhus,[129] whose timely appearance seemed for the
moment to have saved the independence of Tarentum, was the
most brilliant of the military adventurers whom the disturbed
times following the death of Alexander the Great had brought
into prominence. High-spirited, generous and ambitious, he
had formed the scheme of rivalling Alexander's achievements
in the East, by winning for himself an empire in the West. He
aspired not only to unite under his rule the Greek communities
of Italy and Sicily, but to overthrow the great Phoenician
state of Carthage—the natural enemy of Greeks in the West, as
Persia had been in the East. Of Rome it is clear that he knew
little or nothing; the task of ridding the Greek seaports of
their barbarian foes he no doubt regarded as an easy one;
and the splendid force he brought with him was intended
rather for the conquest of the West than for the preliminary
work of chastising a few Italian tribes, or securing the submission
of the unwarlike Italian Greeks. He defeated the
Roman consul, M. Valerius Laevinus, on the banks of the
474.
Liris (280), and gained the support of the Greek cities
as well as that of numerous bands of Samnites,
Lucanians and Bruttians. But, to the disappointment of his
new allies, Pyrrhus showed no anxiety to follow up his advantage.
His heart was set on Sicily and Africa, and his immediate
475.
object was to come to terms with Rome. But though he
advanced as near Rome as Anagnia (279), nothing could
shake the resolution of the senate, and in the next year
(278) he again routed the legions at Asculum (Ascoli), but only to
find that the indomitable resolution of the enemy was strengthened
by defeat. He now crossed into Sicily, where, though at
first successful, he was unable to achieve any lasting result.
478. 479.
Soured and disappointed, Pyrrhus returned to Italy
(276) to find the Roman legions steadily moving 476
southwards, and his Italian allies disgusted by his desertion
of their cause. In 275 the decisive battle of the war
was fought at Beneventum. The consul, M'. Curius
Dentatus, the conqueror of Samnium, gained a complete victory,
and Pyrrhus, unable any longer to face his opponents in the
field, and disappointed of all assistance from his allies, retreated toin disgust to Tarentum and thence crossed into Greece.[130]

A few years later (272) Tarentum was surrendered
to Rome by its Epirot garrison; it was granted a
482. 484. 485. 481, 491. 481, 486, 491. 486. 486. 490.
treaty of alliance, but its walls were razed and its fleet handed
over to Rome. In 270 Rhegium also entered the
ranks of Roman allies, and finally in 269 a single
campaign crushed the last efforts at resistance in
Samnium. Rome was now at leisure to consolidate the position
she had won. Between 273 and 263 three new colonies
were founded in Samnium and Lucania—Paestum
in 273, Beneventum in 268, Aesernia in 263. In
central Italy the area of Roman territory was increased
by the full enfranchisement (268) of the Sabines,[131]
and of their neighbours to the east, the people of Picenum.
To guard the Adriatic coast colonies were established
at Ariminum (268), at Firmum and at Castrum
Novum (264), while to the already numerous maritime
colonies was added that of Cosa in Etruria.[132]

Rome was now the undisputed mistress of Italy. The limits
of her supremacy to the north were represented roughly by a
Rome the mistress of Italy.
line drawn across the peninsula from the mouth of
the Arno on the west to that of the Aesis on the
east.[133]
Beyond this line lay the Ligurians and the Celts; all
south of it was now united as “Italy” under the rule of Rome.

But the rule of Rome over Italy, like her wider rule over
the Mediterranean coasts, was not an absolute dominion over
conquered subjects. It was in form at least a confederacy under
Roman protection and guidance; and the Italians, like the provincials,
were not the subjects, but the “allies and friends” of
the Roman people.[134] In the treatment of these allies Rome consistently
followed the maxim, divide et impera. In every possible
way she strove to isolate them from each other, while binding them
closely to herself. The old federal groups were in most cases
broken up, and each of the members united with Rome by a
special treaty of alliance. In Etruria, Latium, Campania and
Magna Graecia the city state was taken as the unit; in central Italy
where urban life was non-existent, the unit was the tribe. The
northern Sabellian peoples, for instance—the Marsi, Paeligni,
Yestini, Marrucini, Frentani—were now constituted as separate
communities in alliance with Rome. In many cases, too, no
freedom of trade or intermarriage was allowed between the allies
themselves, a policy afterwards systematically pursued in the
provinces. Nor were all these numerous allied communities
placed on the same footing as regarded their relations with Rome
herself. To begin with, a sharp distinction was drawn between
The Latins.
the “Latini” and the general mass of Italian allies. The
“Latins” of this period had little more than the name
in common with the old thirty Latin peoples of the
days of Spurius Cassius. With a few exceptions, such as Tibur
and Praeneste, the latter had either disappeared or had been
incorporated with the Roman state, and the Latins of 268 B.C.
were almost exclusively the “Latin colonies,” that is to say,
communities founded by Rome, composed of men of Roman
blood, and whose only claim to the title “Latin” lay in the fact
that Rome granted to them some portion of the rights and
privileges formerly enjoyed by the old Latin cities under the
Cassian treaty.[135] Though nominally allies, they were in fact
offshoots of Rome herself, bound to her by community of race,
language and interest, and planted as Roman garrisons among
alien and conquered peoples. The Roman citizen who joined
a Latin colony lost his citizenship—to have allowed him to
retain it would no doubt have been regarded as enlarging too
rapidly the limits of the citizen body; but he received in
exchange the status of a favoured ally. The member of a Latin
486.
colony had the right of commercium and down to 268[136]
of conubium also with Roman citizens. Provided
they left sons and property to represent them at home, they
were free to migrate to Rome and acquire the Roman franchise.
In war-time they not only shared in the booty, but claimed a
portion of any land confiscated by Rome and declared “public.”
These privileges, coupled with their close natural affinities
with Rome, successfully secured the fidelity of the Latin colonies,
which became not only the most efficient props of Roman
supremacy, but powerful agents in the work of Romanizing
The Italian allies.
Italy. Below the privileged Latins stood the Italian
allies; and here again we know generally that there
were considerable differences of status, determined
in each case by the terms of their respective treaties with Rome.
We are told that the Greek cities of Neapolis and Heraclea
were among the most favoured;[137] the Bruttii, on the other hand,
seem, even before the Hannibalic War, to have been less generously
treated. But beyond this we have no detailed information.

Rome, however, did not rely only on this policy of isolation.
Her allies were attached as closely to herself as they were clearly
separated from each other, and from the first she took every
security for the maintenance of her own paramount authority.
Within its own borders, each ally was left to manage its own
affairs as an independent state.[138] The badges which marked
subjection to Rome in the provinces—the resident magistrate
and the tribute—were unknown in Italy. But in all points
affecting the relations of one ally with another, in all questions
of the general interests of Italy and of foreign policy, the
decision rested solely with Rome. The place of a federal
constitution, of a federal council, of federal officers, was filled
by the Roman senate, assembly and magistrates. The maintenance
of peace and order in Italy, the defence of the coasts
and frontiers, the making of war or peace with foreign powers,
were matters the settlement of which Rome kept entirely in
her own hands. Each allied state, in time of war, was called
upon for a certain contingent of men, but, though its contingent
usually formed a distinct corps under officers of its own, its
numerical strength was fixed by Rome, it was brigaded with the
Roman legions, and was under the orders of the Roman consul.[139]

This paramount authority of Rome throughout the peninsula
was confirmed and justified by the fact that Rome herself was
The Roman state.
now infinitely more powerful than any one of her
numerous allies. Her territory, as distinct from that
of the allied states, covered something like one-third
of the peninsula south of the Aesis. Along the west coast
it stretched from Caere to the southern borders of Campania.
Inland, it included the former territories of the Acqui and
Hernici, the Sabine country, and even extended eastward into
Picenum, While beyond these limits were outlying districts,
such as the lands of the Senonian Celts, with the Roman colony
of Sena, and others elsewhere in Italy, which had been confiscated
by Rome and given over to Roman settlers. Since the
first important annexation of territory after the capture of
388.
Veii (396), twelve new tribes had been formed,[140] and the
number of male citizens registered at the census had
risen
from 152,000 to 290,000.[141] Within this enlarged Roman
state were now included numerous communities with local
Colonies and municipia.
institutions and government. At their head stood
the Roman colonies (coloniae civium Romanorum),
founded to guard especially the coasts of Latium and
Campania.[142] Next to these eldest children of Rome
came those communities which had been invested with the full
Roman franchise, such, for instance, as the old Latin towns of
Aricia, Lanuvium, Tusculum, Nomentum and Pedum. Lowest
in the scale were those which had not been considered ripe for
the full franchise, but had, like Caere, received instead the
civitas sine suffragio, the civil without the political rights.[143]
Their members, though Roman citizens, were not enrolled in the
tribes, and in time of war served not in the ranks of the Roman
legions but in separate contingents. In addition to these
organized town communities, there were also the groups of
Roman settlers on the public lands, and the dwellers in the
village communities of the enfranchised highland districts in
central Italy.

The administrative needs of this enlarged Rome were obviously
such as could not be adequately satisfied by the system which
had done well enough for a small city state with a few square
miles of territory. The old centralization of all government in
Rome itself had become an impossibility, and the Roman statesmen
did their best to meet the altered requirements of the time.
The urban communities within the Roman pale, colonies and
municipia, were allowed a large measure of local self-government.
In all we find local assemblies, senates and magistrates,
to whose hands the ordinary routine of local administration
was confided, and, in spite of differences in detail, e.g. in the
titles and numbers of the magistrates, the same type of constitution
prevailed throughout.[144] But these local authorities were
carefully subordinated to the higher powers in Rome. The local
constitution could be modified or revoked by the Roman senate
and assembly, and the local magistrates, no less than the
ordinary members of the community, were subject to the paramount
authority of the Roman consuls, praetors and censors.
In particular, care was taken to keep the administration of
justice well under central control. The Roman citizen in a
colony or municipium enjoyed, of course, the right of appeal to
the Roman people in a capital case. We may also assume that
from the first some limit was placed to the jurisdiction of the
local magistrate, and that cases falling outside it came before
the central authorities. But an additional safeguard for the
Prefects.
equitable and uniform administration of Roman law,
in communities to many of which the Roman code
was new and unfamiliar, was provided by the institution of
prefects (praefecti juri dicundo),[145] who were sent out annually,
as representatives of the Roman praetor, to administer justice
in the colonies and municipia. To prefects was, moreover,
assigned the charge of those districts within the Roman pale
where no urban communities, and consequently no organized local
government, existed. In these two institutions, that of municipal
government and that of prefectures, we have already two of the
cardinal points of the later imperial system of government.

Lastly, the changes which the altered position and increased
responsibilities of Rome had effected in her military system[146]The military system.
tended to weaken the intimate connexion between
the Roman army in the field and the Roman people
at home, and thus prepared the way for that complete
breach between the two which in the end proved fatal
to the Republic. It is true that service in the legion was still
the first duty and the highest privilege of the fully qualified
citizen. But this service was gradually altering in character.
Though new legions were still raised each year for the summer
campaigns, this was by no means always accompanied, as
formerly, by the disbandment of those already on foot, and
this increase in the length of time during which the citizen was
kept with the standards had, as early as the siege of Veii,
necessitated a further deviation from the old theory of military
service—the introduction of pay.[147] Moreover, while in the
early days of the Republic the same divisions served for the
soldier in the legion and the citizen in the assembly, in the
new manipular system,[148] with its three lines, no regard was paid
to civic distinctions, but only to length of service and military
efficiency, while at the same time the more open order of fighting
which it involved demanded of each soldier greater skill, and
therefore a more thorough training in arms than the old phalanx.
The Proconsulate.
One other change resulted from the new military
necessities of the time, which was as fruitful of results
as the incipient separation between the citizen and
the soldier. Under the early Republic, the chief command of
the legions rested with the consuls of the year. But, as Rome's
military operations increased in area and in distance from
Rome, a larger staff became necessary, and the inconvenience
of summoning home a consul in the field from an unfinished
campaign became intolerable. The remedy found, that of
prolonging for a further period the imperium of the consul,
was first applied in 327 B.C. in the case of Q. Publilius Philo,[149]427-90.
and between 327 and 264 instances of this prorogatioimperii became increasingly common. This proconsular
authority, originally an occasional and subordinate one, was
destined to become first of all the strongest force in the Republic,
and ultimately the chief prop of the power of the Caesars.

Period B: Rome and the Mediterranean States, 265-146
B.C.—(a) Conquest of the West.—Though marked out by
489-608.
her geographical position as the natural centre of
the Mediterranean, Italy had hitherto played no active
part in Mediterranean politics, but, now that she was for the first
time united, it was felt throughout the Mediterranean world
that a new power had arisen, and Rome, as the head and
representative of Italy, found herself irresistibly drawn into
the vortex of Mediterranean affairs. Egypt sought her alliance,
and Greek scholars began to interest themselves keenly in
the history, constitution, and character of the Latin Republic
which had so suddenly become famous. But Rome looked
naturally westward rather than eastward. The western coasts
of the peninsula were the most fertile and populous and wealthy;
and it was in this direction that the natural openings for Italian
commerce were to be found. It was, however, precisely on
this side that Rome had serious ground for anxiety. Carthage
was now at the height of her power. Her outposts were
threateningly near to Italy in Sardinia and in Sicily, while her
fleets swept the seas and jealously guarded for the benefit of
Carthage alone the hidden treasures of the West. In the east
of Sicily, Syracuse still upheld the cause of Greek independence
against the hereditary foe of the Greek race; but Syracuse
stood alone, and her resources were comparatively small.
What Rome had to fear was the establishment, and that at no
distant date, of an absolute Carthaginian domination over the
Western seas—a domination which would not only be fatal to
Italian commerce, but would be a standing menace to the safety
of the Italian coasts.

It was above all things essential for Rome that the Carthaginians
should advance no farther eastward. But already
First Punic War, 265-41 = 489-513.
in 272 Tarentum had almost fallen into their grasp,
and seven years later Rome was threatened with the
establishment of Carthaginian rule at Messana, within
sight of the Italian coast. The intervention of both
powers in a quarrel between the Mamertines, a body of
Campanian mercenaries who had occupied Messana, and Hiero II.
of Syracuse, led to the outbreak of war between Rome and
490.
Carthage in 264 B.C. The military history of the
struggle which followed is treated in the article Punic Wars;
it will suffice to note here that the war lasted until
241 B.C., when the Carthaginians were compelled to cede Sicily
and the Lipari islands to Rome, and to pay an indemnity of
3200 talents (about £800,000).

The struggle was one in which both Rome and Carthage were
serving an apprenticeship in a warfare the conditions of which
were unfamiliar to both. The Roman legions were foes very
unlike any against which the Carthaginian leaders had ever
led their motley array of mercenaries, while Rome was called
upon for the first time to fight a war across the sea, and to fight
with ships against the greatest naval power of the age. The
novelty of these conditions accounts for much of the vacillating
and uncertain action observable on both sides. It is possible
that Hamilcar had already made up his mind that Rome must
be attacked and crushed in Italy, but his government attempted
nothing more than raids upon the coast. There are indications
also that some in the Roman senate saw no end to the struggle
but in the destruction of Carthage; yet an invasion of Africa
was only once seriously attempted, and then only a half-hearted
support was given to the expedition. But these peculiarities
in the war served to bring out in the clearest relief the strength
and the weakness of the two contending states. The chief
dangers for Carthage lay obviously in the jealousy exhibited at
home of her officers abroad, in the difficulty of controlling her
mercenary troops, and in the ever-present possibility of disaffection
among her subjects in Libya—dangers which even the
genius of Hannibal failed finally to surmount. Rome, on the
other hand, was strong in the public spirit of her citizens,
the fidelity of her allies, the valour and discipline of her legions.
What she needed was a system which should make a better use
of her splendid materials than one under which her plans were
shaped from day to day by a divided senate, and executed by
officers who were changed every year, and by soldiers most of
whom returned home at the close of each summer's campaign.

The interval between the First and Second Punic Wars was
employed by both Rome and Carthage in strengthening their
respective positions. The eastern end of Sicily was still left
under the rule of Hiero as the ally of Rome, but the larger
western portion of the island became directly subject to Rome,
and a temporary arrangement seems to have been made for its
government, either by one of the two praetors, or possibly by a
quaestor.[150] Sardinia and Corsica had not been surrendered to
513, 515.
Rome by the treaty of 241, but three years later (239),
on the invitation of the Carthaginian mercenaries
stationed in the islands, a Roman force occupied them; Carthage
protested, but, on the Romans threatening war, she gave
way, and Sardinia and Corsica were formally ceded to Rome,
though it was some seven or eight years before all resistance
527.
on the part of the natives themselves was crushed.
In 227, however, the senate considered matters ripe
for the establishment of a separate administration in her
oversea possessions. In that year two additional praetors
were elected; to one was assigned the charge of western Sicily,
to the other that of Sardinia and Corsica,[151] and thus the first
stones of the Roman provincial system were laid. Of at least
equal importance for the security of the peninsula was the
subjugation of the Celtic tribes in the valley of the Po. These,
headed by the Boii and Insubres and assisted by levies from
529.
the Celts to the westward, had in 225 alarmed the
whole of Italy by invading Etruria and penetrating to
Clusium, only three days' journey from Rome. Here, however,
their courage seems to have failed them. They retreated
northward along the Etruscan coast, until at Telamon their
way was barred by the Roman legions, returning from Sardinia
to the defence of Rome, while a second consular army hung
upon their rear. Thus hemmed in, the Celts fought desperately,
but were completely defeated and the flower of their tribesmen
slain. The Romans followed up their success by invading the
Celtic territory. The Boii were easily reduced to submission.
The Insubres, north of the Po, resisted more obstinately, but by
532.
222 the war was over, and all the tribes in the rich
Po valley acknowledged the supremacy of Rome. The
conquered Celts were not enrolled among the Italian allies
of Rome, but were treated as subjects beyond the frontier.
Three colonies were founded to hold them in check—Placentia
(218) and Cremona in the territory of the Insubres, Mutina (183)
in that of the Boii; and the great northern road (Via Flaminia)
was completed as far as the Celtic border at Ariminum.

On the Adriatic coast the immediate interests of Rome were
limited to rendering the sea safe for Italian trade. It was with
525.
this object that, in 229, the first Roman expedition
crossed the Adriatic, and inflicted severe chastisement
on the Illyrian pirates of the opposite coast.[152] This expedition
was the means of establishing for the first time direct political
relations between Rome and the states of Greece proper, to
many of which the suppression of piracy in the Adriatic was of
as much importance as to Rome herself. Alliances were concluded
with Corcyra, Epidamnus, and Apollonia; and embassies
explaining the reasons which had brought Roman
troops into Greece were sent to the Aetolians, the Achaeans,
and even to Athens and Corinth. Everywhere they were well
received, and the admission of the Romans to the Isthmian
526.
games[153] (228) formally acknowledged them as the
natural allies of the free Greek states against both
barbarian tribes and foreign despots. Meanwhile Carthage
had acquired a possession which promised to compensate her
for the loss of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. The genius of
her greatest citizen and soldier, Hamilcar Barca, had appreciated
the enormous value of the Spanish peninsula, and conceived
the scheme of founding there a Carthaginian dominion which
should not only add to the wealth of Carthage, but supply her
with a base of operations for a war of revenge with Rome.
518-26. 526-33. 535.
The conquest of southern and eastern Spain, begun
by Hamilcar (236-28) and carried on by his kinsman
Hasdrubal (228-21), was completed by his son
Hannibal, who, with all his father's genius, inherited also
his father's hatred of Rome, and by 219 the authority
of Carthage had been extended as far as the Ebro
(see Spain, History). Rome had not watched this rapid advance
without anxiety, but, probably owing to her troubles
528.
with the Celts, she had contented herself with
stipulating (226) that Carthage should not carry her arms
beyond the Ebro, so as to threaten Rome's ancient ally, the
Greek Massilia (mod. Marseilles), and with securing the independence
of the two nominally Greek communities, Emporiae
and Saguntum,[154] on the east coast.

But these precautions were of no avail against the resolute
determination of Hannibal, with whom the conquest of Spain
was only preliminary to an attack upon Italy, and who could
not afford to leave behind him in Spain a state allied to Rome.
In 219, therefore, disregarding the protests of a Roman embassy,
he attacked and took Saguntum, an act which, as he had foreseen,
rendered a rupture with Rome inevitable, while it set
his own hands free for a further advance.

For the details of the war which followed, the reader may
be referred to the articles Punic Wars, Hannibal, and Scipio.
Second Punic War, 218-1 = 536-53. 538. 539. 540.
From the outbreak of hostilities until the crowning
victory of Cannae in 216 Hannibal's career of success
was unchecked; and the annihilation of the Roman
army in that battle was followed by the defection
of almost the whole of southern Italy, with the exception
of the Latin colonies and the Greek coast towns. In
215, moreover, Philip V. of Macedon formed an alliance
with Hannibal and threatened to invade Italy; in
214 Syracuse revolted, and in 212 the Greek cities
in S. Italy went over to Hannibal. But the indomitable spirit
of the Romans asserted itself in the face of these crushing
542, 543.
misfortunes. In 212 Syracuse was recovered; in 211
Capua fell after a long siege which Hannibal failed
to raise, even by his famous march up to the gates of Rome,
and in the same year a coalition was formed in Greece against
Philip V. of Macedon, which effectually paralysed his offensive
action. Hannibal was now confined to Lucania and Bruttium
and his brother Hasdrubal, marching from Spain to join him,
547. 548. 543-48.
was defeated and slain on the river Metaurus (207).
The war in Italy was now virtually ended, for, though
during four years more Hannibal stood at bay in a corner of
Bruttium, he was powerless to prevent the restoration of Roman
authority throughout the peninsula. Sicily was once more
secure; and finally in 206, the year after the victory
on the Metaurus, the successes of the young P. Scipio
in Spain (211-6) were crowned by the complete
expulsion of the Carthaginians from the peninsula. On his
return from Spain Scipio eagerly urged an immediate invasion
549. 550. 551.
of Africa. The senate hesitated; but Scipio gained
the day. He was elected consul for 205, and given
the province of Sicily, with permission to cross into Africa
if he thought fit. Voluntary contributions of men, money, and
supplies poured in to the support of the popular hero; and
by the end of 205 Scipio had collected in Sicily a sufficient
force for his purpose. In 204 he crossed to Africa,
where he was welcomed by the Numidian prince
Massinissa, whose friendship he had made in
Spain. In 203 he twice defeated the Carthaginian forces,
and a large party at Carthage were anxious to accept
his offer of negotiations. But the advocates of resistance
triumphed.

Hannibal was recalled from Italy, and returned to fight his
last battle against Rome at Zama, where Scipio, who had
552.
been continued in command as proconsul for 202 by a
special vote of the people, won a complete victory.
The war was over. The Roman assembly voted that the
Carthaginian request for peace should be granted, and entrusted
the settlement of the terms to Scipio and a commission
often senators. Carthage was allowed to retain her
territory in Africa; but she undertook to wage no wars outside
Africa, and none inside without the consent of Rome.
She surrendered all her ships but ten triremes, her elephants,
and all prisoners of war, and agreed to pay an indemnity of
10,000 talents in fifty years. The Numidian Massinissa
(q.v.) was rewarded by an increase of territory, and was
enrolled among the “allies and friends” of the Roman
people.

The battle of Zama decided the fate of the West. The power
of Carthage was broken and her supremacy passed to Rome.
The West under Roman rule. 631.
Henceforth Rome had no rival to fear westward of
Italy, and it rested with herself to settle within what
limits her supremacy should be confined and what form
it should take. For the next fifty years, however, Rome
was too deeply involved in the affairs of the East to think of
extending her rule far beyond the limits of the rich
inheritance which had fallen to her by the defeat
of Carthage; but within this area considerable advance was
made in the organization and consolidation of her rule. In
Sicily and Spain, the immediate establishment of a Roman
Sicily and Spain. 553. 548-57.
government was imperatively necessary, if these
possessions were not either to fall a prey to internal
anarchy, or be recovered for Carthage by some second
Hamilcar. Accordingly, we find that in Sicily the former
dominions of Hiero were at once united with the western
half of the island as a single province,[155] and that in Spain,
after nine years of a provisional government (206-197),
two provinces were in 197[156] definitely established,
and each, like Sicily, assigned to one of the praetors
for the year, two additional praetors being elected for the
purpose. But here the resemblance between the two cases
553. 618.
ends. From 201 down to the outbreak of the Slave
War in 136 there was unbroken peace in Sicily, and
its part in the history is limited to its important
functions in supplying Rome with corn and in provisioning
and clothing the Roman legions.[157] It became every year a more
integral part of Italy; and a large proportion even of the land
itself passed gradually into the hands of enterprising Roman
speculators. The governors of the two Spains had very
different work to do from that which fell to the lot of the
Sicilian praetors. The condition of Spain required that year
after year the praetors should be armed with the consular
authority, and backed by a standing force of four legions, while
more than once the presence of the consuls themselves was
found necessary. Still, in spite of all difficulties, the work
of pacification proceeded. To M. Porcius Cato, the censor, and
559. 574-75. 605. 621.
to Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (praetor and
propraetor, 180-79), father of the two tribunes, is mainly
due the credit of quieting the Celtiberian tribes of
central Spain, and the government of Gracchus was followed
by thirty years of comparative tranquillity. The insurrection
headed by Viriathus in 149 was largely caused by exactions
of the Roman magistrates themselves, while
its obstinate continuance down to the capture of Numantia,
in 133, was almost as much the result of the incapacity
of the Roman commanders.[158] But the re-settlement of
the country by Scipio Africanus the younger in that year left
all Spain, with the exception of the highland Astures and
Cantabri in the north-west, finally and tranquilly subject to
Rome. Roman traders and speculators flocked to the seaport
towns and spread inland. The mines became centres
of Roman industry; the Roman legionaries quartered in
Spain year after year married Spanish wives, and when
their service was over gladly settled down in Spain in preference
to returning to Italy. The first Roman communities
established outside Italy were both planted in
Spain, and both owed their existence to the Roman
legions.[159]

In Africa there was no question at first of the introduction
of Roman government by the formation of a province (see
Africa—Third Punic War, 153-46 = 605-8. 559, 571.Africa, Roman). Carthage, bound hand and foot by
the treaty of 201, was placed under the jealous watch
of the loyal prince of Numidia, who himself willingly
acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome. But it was
impossible for this arrangement to be permanent.
Every symptom of reviving prosperity at Carthage was
regarded at Rome with feverish anxiety, and neither the
expulsion of Hannibal in 195 nor his death in 183 did
much to check the growing conviction that Rome
would never be secure while her rival existed. It was
therefore with grim satisfaction that many in the Roman senate
watched the increasing irritation of the Carthaginians under the
harassing raids and encroachments of their favoured neighbour
Massinissa, and waited for the moment when Carthage should,
by some breach of the conditions imposed upon her, supply
603. 607.
Rome with a pretext for interference. At last in 151
came the news that Carthage, in defiance of treaty
obligations, was actually at war with Massinissa. The anti-Carthaginan
party in the senate, headed by M. Porcius Cato,
eagerly seized the opportunity, and war was declared, and
nothing short of the destruction of their city itself was demanded
from the despairing Carthaginians. The demand was refused,
and in 149 the siege of Carthage begun. During the next two
years little progress was made, but in 147 P. Cornelius
Scipio Aemilianus, grandson by adoption of the conqueror
of Hannibal, was, at the age of thirty-seven, and though
only a candidate for the aedileship, elected consul, and given the
608.
command in Africa. In the next year (146) Carthage
was taken and razed to the ground. Its territory
became the Roman province of Africa, while Numidia, now
ruled by the three sons of Massinissa, remained as an allied
state under Roman suzerainty, and served to protect the
new province against the raids of the desert tribes (see
Carthage).

In Italy itself the Hannibalic war had been followed by important
changes. In the north the Celtic tribes paid for their
Italy.
sympathy with Hannibal by the final loss of all separate
political existence. Cispadane Gaul, studded with
colonies and flooded with Roman settlers, was rapidly
Romanized. Beyond the Padus (Po) in Polybius's time Roman
civilization was already widely spread. In the extreme north-east
the Latin colony of Aquileia, the last of its kind, was
573. 574. 581.
founded in 181, to control the Alpine tribes, while in
the north-west the Ligurians were held in check by
the colony of Luna (180), and by the extensive settlements
of Roman citizens and Latins made on Ligurian
territory in 173.[160] In southern Italy the depression of
the Greek cities on the coast, begun by the raids of the
Sabellian tribes, was completed by the repeated blows inflicted
upon them during the Hannibalic struggle. Some of them lost
territory;[161] all suffered from a decline of population and loss
of trade; and their place was taken by such new Roman settlements
as Brundusium (Brindisi) and Puteoli (Pozzuoli).[162] In
the interior the southern Sabellian tribes suffered scarcely less
severely. The Bruttii were struck off the list of Roman allies,
and nearly all their territory was confiscated.[163] To the Apulians
and Lucanians no such hard measure was meted out; but their
strength had been broken by the war, and their numbers
dwindled; large tracts of land in their territories were
seized by Rome, and allotted to Roman settlers, or occupied
by Roman speculators. That Etruria also suffered
from declining energy, a dwindling population, and the
621.
spread of large estates is clear from the state of
things existing there in 133. It was indeed in
central Italy, the home of the Latins and their nearest
kinsmen, and in the new Latin and Roman settlements
throughout the peninsula that progress and activity were
henceforth concentrated.

(b) Rome in the East, 200-133.—Ever since the repulse
of Pyrrhus from Italy, Rome had been slowly drifting
553-608. 554-621. 526. 540.
into closer contact with the Eastern states. With one
of the three great powers which had divided between them the
empire of Alexander, with Egypt, she had formed an alliance
in 273, and the alliance had been cemented by the growth
of commercial intercourse between the two countries.[164] In
228 her chastisement of the Illyrian pirates had led
naturally enough to the establishment of friendly relations
with some of the states of Greece proper. In 214
the alliance between Philip V. and Hannibal, and the former's
threatened attack on Italy, forced her into war with Macedon,
at the head of a coalition of the Greek states against him, which
effectually frustrated his designs against herself; at the first
549.
opportunity, however (205), she ended the war by a
peace which left the position unchanged. The results
of the war were not only to draw closer the ties which bound
Rome to the Greek states, but to inspire the senate with a
genuine dread of Philip's restless ambition, and with a bitter
resentment against him for his union with Hannibal. The
events of the next four years served to deepen both these
feelings. In 205 Philip entered into a compact with
Antiochus III. of Syria for the partition between them
of the dominions of Egypt,[165] now left by the death of Ptolemy
Philopator to the rule of a boy-king. Antiochus was to take
Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, while Philip claimed for his share the
districts subject to Egypt on the coasts of the Aegean and the
Greek islands. Philip no doubt hoped to be able to secure these
unlawful acquisitions before the close of the Second Punic War
should set Rome free to interfere with his plans. But the
obstinate resistance offered by Attalus of Pergamum and the
553.
Rhodians upset his calculations. In 201 Rome made
peace with Carthage, and the senate had leisure to
listen to the urgent appeal for assistance which reached her from
her Eastern allies. With Antiochus indeed the senate was not
yet prepared to quarrel; but with Philip the senate had no
thoughts of a peaceful settlement. Their animosity against him
has been deepened by the assistance he had recently rendered to
Carthage. Always an unsafe and turbulent neighbour, he
would, if allowed to become supreme in the Aegean, prove as
dangerous to her interests in the East as Carthage had been in
the West. To cripple or at least to stay the growth of Philip's
power was in the eyes of the senate a necessity; but it was only
by representing a Macedonian invasion of Italy as imminent
554.
that they persuaded the assembly, which was longing
for peace, to pass a declaration of war[166] (200).
The war began in the summer of 200 B.C., and, though the
landing of the Roman legions in Epirus was not followed, as
had been hoped, by any general rising against Philip,
yet the latter had soon to discover that, if they were
Second Macedonian War. 200-197 = 554-57.
not enthusiastic for Rome, they were still less inclined
actively to assist himself. Neither by force nor
by diplomacy could he make any progress south of
Boeotia. The fleets of Pergamum and Rhodes, now the
zealous allies of Rome, protected Attica and watched the
eastern coasts. The Achaeans and Nabis of Sparta were
obstinately neutral, while nearer home in the north the Epirots
and Aetolians threatened Thessaly and Macedonia. His own
resources both in men and in money had been severely
strained by his constant wars,[167] and the only ally who could have
given him effective assistance, Antiochus, was fully occupied
with the conquest of Coele-Syria. It is no wonder then that,
in spite of his dashing generalship and high courage, he made
556.
but a brief stand. T. Quinctius Flamininus (consul
198), in his first year of command, defeated him on
the Aous, drove him back to the pass of Tempe, and in the next
year utterly routed him at Cynoscephalae. Almost at the same
moment the Achaeans, who had now joined Rome, took Corinth,
and the Rhodians defeated his troops in Caria.[168] Further
resistance was impossible; Philip submitted, and early the
next year a Roman commission reached Greece with instructions
to arrange terms of peace. These were such as effectually
secured Rome's main object in the war, the removal of all
danger to herself and her allies from Macedonian
aggression.[169]553.
Philip was left in possession of his kingdom, but was degraded
to the rank of a second-rate power, deprived of all possessions
in Greece, Thrace and Asia Minor, and forbidden, as Carthage
had been in 201, to wage war without the consent of
Rome, whose ally and friend he now became.

The second point in the settlement now effected by Rome
was the liberation of the Greeks. The “freedom of Greece”
The liberation of the Greece. 560.
was proclaimed at the Isthmian games amid a scene of
wild enthusiasm,[170] which reached its height when two
years later (194) Flamininus withdrew his troops even
from the “three fetters of Greece”—Chalcis, Demetrias
and Corinth.[171] There is no reason to doubt that, in acting thus,
not only Flamininus himself, but the senate and people at home
were influenced, partly at any rate, by feelings of genuine
sympathy with the Greeks and reverence for their past. It is
equally clear that no other course was open to them. For
Rome to have annexed Greece, as she had annexed Sicily and
Spain, would have been a flagrant violation of the pledges she
had repeatedly given both before and during the war; the
attempt would have excited the fiercest opposition, and would
probably have thrown the Asiatic as well as the European
Greeks into the arms of Antiochus. But a friendly and independent
Greece would be at once a check on Macedon, a barrier
against aggression from the East, and a promising field for
Roman commerce. Nor while liberating the Greeks did Rome
abstain from such arrangements as seemed necessary to secure
the predominance of her own influence. In the Peloponnese,
for instance, the Achaeans were rewarded by considerable
accessions of territory; and it is possible that the Greek states,
as allies of Rome, were expected to refrain from war upon each
other without her consent.[172]

Antiochus III. of Syria, Philip's accomplice in the proposed partition of the dominions of their common rival, Egypt, with returned from the conquest of Coele-Syria (198) to learn first of all that Philip was hard pressed by the Romans, and shortly afterwards that he hadWar with Antiochus, 192–89 = 562–65. been decisively beaten at Cynoscephalae. It was already too late to assist his former ally, but Antiochus resolved at any rate to lose no time in securing for himself the possessions of the Ptolemies in Asia Minor and in eastern Thrace, which Philip had claimed, and which Rome now pronounced free and independent. In 197–96 he overran Asia Minor and crossed into Thrace.[173] But Antiochus was pleasure-loving, irresolute, and no general, and it was not until 192 that the urgent entreaties of the Aetolians, and the withdrawal of the Roman troops from Greece, nerved him to the decisive step of crossing the Aegean; even then the force he took with557–58.562. him was so small as to show that he completely failed to appreciate the nature of the task before him.[174] At Rome the prospect of a conflict with Antiochus excited great anxiety, and it was not until every resource of diplomacy had been exhausted that war was declared,[175] and the real weakness which lay behind the once magnificent pretensions of the “king of kings” was revealed.

Had Antiochus acted with energy when in 192 he landed in Greece, he might have won the day before the Roman legions appeared. As it was, in spite of the warnings of Hannibal,[176] who was now in his camp, and of the Aetolians, he frittered away valuable time between562.

563.

564. his pleasures at Chalcis and useless attacks on petty Thessalian towns. In 191 Glabrio landed at the head of an imposing force; and a single battle at Thermopylae broke the courage of Antiochus, who hastily recrossed the sea to Ephesus, leaving his Aetolian allies to their fate. But Rome could not pause here. The safety of her faithful allies, the Pergamenes and Rhodians, and of the Greek cities in Asia Minor, as well as the necessity of chastising Antiochus, demanded an invasion of Asia. A Roman fleet had already (191) crossed the Aegean, and in concert with the fleets of Pergamum and Rhodes worsted the navy of Antiochus. In 190 the new consul L. Scipio, accompanied by his famous brother, the conqueror of Africa, led the Roman legion for the first time into Asia. At Magnesia ad Sipylum, in Lydia,
he met and defeated the motley and ill-disciplined hosts of the
great king.[177] For the first time the West, under Roman leadership,
successfully encountered the forces of the East, and
the struggle began which lasted far on into the days of the
Settlement of western Asia.
emperors. The terms of the peace which followed
the victory at Magnesia tell their own story clearly
enough. There is no question, any more than in
Greece, of annexation; the main object in view is that
of securing the predominance of Roman interests and influence
throughout the peninsula of Asia Minor, and removing to a safe
distance the only eastern power which could be considered
dangerous.[178] The line of the Halys and the Taurus range, the
natural boundary of the peninsula eastward, was established
as the boundary between Antiochus and the kingdoms, cities
and peoples now enrolled as the allies and friends of Rome. This
line Antiochus was forbidden to cross; nor was he to send ships
of war farther west than Cape Sarpedon in Cilicia. Immediately
to the west of this frontier lay Bithynia, Paphlagonia and the
immigrant Celtic Galatae, and these frontier states, now the
allies of Rome, served as a second line of defence against attacks
from the east. The area lying between these “buffer states”
and the Aegean was organized by Rome in such a way as should
at once reward the fidelity of her allies and secure both her own
paramount authority and safety from foreign attack. Pergamum
and Rhodes were so strengthened—the former by the gift of the
Chersonese, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Mysia and Lydia, the latter by that
of Lycia and Caria—as not only amply to reward their loyalty,
but to constitute them effective props of Roman interests and
effective barriers alike against Thracian and Celtic raids in the
north and Syrian aggression in the south. Lastly, the Greek cities
on the coast, except those already tributary to Pergamum, were
declared free, and established as independent allies of Rome.

In a space of little, over eleven years (200–189)
554–65. Third Macedonian War, 171–68 = 583–86. 557.
Rome had broken the power of Alexander's successors
and established throughout the eastern Mediterranean a
Roman protectorate.

It was in the western half of this protectorate that the first
steps in the direction of annexation were taken. The enthusiasm
provoked by the liberation of the Greeks had died
away, and its place had been taken by feelings of
dissatisfied ambition or sullen resentment. Internecine
feuds and economic distress had brought many parts
of Greece to the verge of anarchy, and, above all, the
very foundations of the settlement effected in 197 were
threatened by the reviving power and aspirations of
Macedon. Loyally as Philip had aided Rome in the war
with Antiochus, the peace of Magnesia brought him nothing
but fresh humiliation. He was forced to abandon all hopes of
recovering Thessaly, and he had the mortification to see the
hated king of Pergamum installed almost on his borders as
master of the Thracian Chersonese. Resistance at the time
565–75.
was unavailing, but from 189 until his death (179) he
laboured patiently and quietly to increase the internal
resources of his own kingdom,[179] and to foment, by dexterous intrigue,
feelings of hostility to Rome among his Greek and barbarian
neighbours. His successor, Perseus, his son by a left-handed
alliance, continued his father's work. He made friends among
the Illyrian and Thracian princes, connected himself by marriage
with Antiochus IV. of Syria and with Prusias of Bithynia,
and, among the Greek peoples, strove, not without success,
to revive the memories of the past glories of Greece under the
Macedonian leadership of the great Alexander.[180] The senate
could no longer hesitate. They were well aware of the restlessness
and discontent in Greece; and after hearing from
Eumenes of Pergamum, and from their own officers, all details
of Perseus's intrigues and preparations, they declared
war.[181]
The struggle, in spite of Perseus's courage and the incapacity at
the outset of the Roman commanders, was short and decisive.
The sympathy of the Greeks with Perseus, which had been
encouraged by the hitherto passive attitude assumed by Rome,
instantly evaporated on the news that the Roman legions were
on their way to Greece. No assistance came from Prusias or
Antiochus, and Perseus's only allies were the Thracian king Cotys
and the Illyrian Genthius. The victory gained by L. Aemilius
586.
Paulus at Pydna (168) ended the war.[182] Perseus
became the prisoner of Rome, and as such died in
Italy a few years later.[183] Rome had begun the war with the
fixed resolution no longer of crippling but of destroying the
Macedonian state. Perseus's repeated proposals for peace
during the war had been rejected; and his defeat was followed
by the final extinction of the kingdom of Philip and Alexander.[184]
Macedonia, though it ceased to exist as a single state, was not,
however, definitely constituted a Roman province.[185] On the
contrary, the mistake was made of introducing some of the
main principles of the provincial system—taxation, disarmament
and the isolation of the separate communities—without
the addition of the element most essential for the maintenance
of order—that of a resident Roman governor. The four petty
republics now created were each autonomous, and each separated
from the rest by the prohibition of commercium and conubium,
but no central controlling authority was substituted for that
of the Macedonian king. The inevitable result was confusion
605–8. Macedonia a Roman province.
and disorder, resulting finally (149–48) in the attempt
of a pretender, Andriscus, who claimed to be a son
of Perseus, to resuscitate the ancient monarchy.[186]
On his defeat in 148 the senate declared Macedonia
province.
a Roman province, and placed a Roman magistrate
at its head.[187]

From 189 to the defeat of Perseus in 168 no formal change of
importance in the status of the Greek states had been made by
Affairs in Greece, 565–87.
Rome. The senate, though forced year after year to
listen to the mutual recriminations and complaints of
rival communities and factions, contented itself as
a rule with intervening just enough to remind the Greeks that
their freedom was limited by its own paramount authority,
and to prevent any single state or confederacy from raising
itself too far above the level of general weakness which it was
the interest of Rome to maintain. After the victory at Pydna,
however, the sympathy shown for Perseus, exaggerated as it
seems to have been by the interested representations of the
womanizing factions in the various states, was made the pretext
for a more emphatic assertion of Roman ascendancy.
All those suspected of Macedonian leanings were removed to
Italy, as hostages for the loyalty of their several communities,[188]
and the real motive for the step was made clear by the exceptionally
severe treatment of the Achaeans, whose loyalty was
not really doubtful, but whose growing power in the Peloponnese
and independence of language had awakened alarm at
Rome. A thousand of their leading men, among them the
historian Polybius, were carried off to Italy (see Polybius).
In Aetolia the Romans connived at the massacre by their so-called
friends of five hundred of the opposite party. Acarnania
was weakened by the loss of Leucas, while Athens was rewarded
for her unambitious loyalty by the gift of Delos and
Samos.

But this somewhat violent experiment only answered for a
time. In 148 the Achaeans rashly persisted, in spite of warnings,
Settlement of Greece, 146 = 608.
in attempting to compel Sparta by force of
arms to submit to the league. When threatened by
Rome with the loss of all that they had gained since
Cynoscephalae, they madly rushed into war.[189] They
were easily defeated, and a “commission of ten,” under the presidency
of L. Mummius, was appointed by the senate thoroughly
to resettle the affairs of Greece.[190] Corinth, by orders of the
senate, was burnt to the ground and its territory confiscated.
Thebes and Chalcis were destroyed, and the walls of all towns
which had shared in the last desperate outbreak were razed to
the ground. All the existing confederacies were dissolved; no
commercium was allowed between one community and another.
Everywhere an aristocratic type of constitution, according to
the invariable Roman practice, was established, and the
payment
of a tribute imposed. Into Greece, as into Macedonia
587.
in 167, the now familiar features of the provincial
system were introduced—disarmament, isolation and
taxation. The Greeks were still nominally free, and no separate
province with a governor of its own[191] was established, but the
needed central control was provided by assigning to the neighbouring
governor of Macedonia a general supervision over the
affairs of Greece. From the Adriatic to the Aegean, and as far
north as the river Drilo and Mount Scardus, the whole peninsula
was now under direct Roman rule.[192]

Beyond the Aegean the Roman protectorate worked no better
than in Macedonia and Greece, and the quarrels and disorders
The Roman protectorate in Asia, 189–46 = 565–608.
which flourished under its shadow were aggravated by
its longer duration and by the still more selfish view
taken by Rome of her responsibilities.[193] At one period
indeed, after the battle of Pydna, it seemed as if
the more vigorous, if harsh, system then initiated
in Macedon and Greece was to be adopted farther
east also. The levelling policy pursued towards Macedon
and the Achaeans was applied with less justice to Rome's
two faithful and favoured allies, Rhodes and Pergamum.
The former had rendered themselves obnoxious to Rome
by their independent tone and still more by their power
and commercial prosperity. On a charge of complicity with
Perseus they were threatened with war, and though this danger
was averted[194] they were forced to exchange their equal alliance
with Rome for one which placed them in close dependence upon
her, and to resign the lucrative possessions in Lycia and Caria
565.
given them in 189. Finally, their commercial
prosperity was ruined by the establishment of a free port
at Delos,[195] and by the short-sighted acquiescence of Rome in the
raids of the Cretan pirates. With Eumenes of Pergamum no
other fault could be found than that he was strong and successful;
but this was enough. His brother Attalus was invited,
but in vain, to become his rival. His turbulent neighbours,
the Galatae, were encouraged to harass him by raids. Pamphylia
was declared independent, and favours were heaped upon
Prusias of Bithynia. These and other annoyances and humiliations
had the desired effect. Eumenes and his two successors—his
brother and son, Attalus II. and Attalus III.—contrived
indeed by studious humility and dexterous flattery to retain
their thrones, but Pergamum (q.v.) ceased to be a powerful state,
and its weakness, added to that of Rhodes, increased the prevalent
disorder in Asia Minor. During the same period we have
other indications of a temporary activity on the part of Rome.
The frontier of the protectorate was pushed forward to the
confines of Armenia by alliances with the kings of Pontus and
Cappadocia beyond the Halys. In Syria, on the death of
590. 586. 591.
Antiochus Epiphanes (164), Rome intervened to place
a minor, Antiochus Eupator, on the throne, under
Roman guardianship.[196] In 168 Egypt formally
acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome,[197] and in 163 the
senate, in the exercise of this new authority, restored Ptolemy
Philometor to his throne, but at the same time weakened his
position by handing over Cyrene and Cyprus to his brother
Euegertes.[198]

But this display of energy was short lived. From the death of Eumenes in 159 down to 133 Rome, secure in the absence of any formidable power in the East, and busy with affairs in Macedonia, Africa and Spain, relapsed into an595–621.inactivity the disastrous results of which revealed themselves
in the next period, in the rise of Mithradates of Pontus, the
spread of Cretan and Cilician piracy, and the advance of
Parthia.

Both the western and eastern Mediterranean now acknowledged
the suzerainty of Rome, but her relations with the two
were from the first different. The West fell to her as the prize
of victory over Carthage, and, the Carthaginian power broken,
there was no hindrance to the immediate establishment in
Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and finally in Africa, of direct Roman
rule. To the majority, moreover, of her western subjects
she brought a civilization as well as a government of a higher
type than any before known to them. And so in the West she
not only formed provinces but created a new and wider Roman
world. To the East, on the contrary, she came as the liberator
of the Greeks; and it was only slowly that in this part of the
Empire her provincial system made way. In the East, moreover,
the older civilization she found there obstinately held its ground.
Her proconsuls governed and her legions protected the Greek
communities, but to the last the East remained in language,
manners and thought Greek and not Roman.

Period C: The Period of the Revolution (146–49 b.c.).—In the course of little more than a century, Rome had become the supreme power in the civilized world. By all men, says Polybius, it was taken for granted that nothing remained but to obey608–705. the commands of the Romans.[199]
For the future the interest of Roman history centres in her
attempts to perform the two Herculean tasks which this unique
position laid upon her,—the efficient government of the subject
peoples, and their defence against the barbarian races which
swarmed around them on all sides. They were tasks under
which the old republican constitution broke down, and which
finally overtaxed the strength even of the marvellous organization
framed and elaborated by Augustus and his successors.

Although in its outward form the old constitution had undergone little change during the age of war and conquest from 265 to 146,[200] the causes, both internal and external, which brought about its fall had been silently at work throughout. Its form was in strictness that of a Constitutional changes, 265–146=489–608.moderate democracy. The patriciate had ceased to exist as a privileged caste,[201] and there was no longer any order of nobility recognized by the constitution. The
senate and the offices of state were in law open to all,[202] and the
will of the people in assembly had been in the most explicit
and unqualified manner declared to be supreme alike in the
election of magistrates, in the passing of laws, and in all matters
touching the caput of a Roman citizen. But in practice the
constitution had become an oligarchy. The senate,
not the assembly, ruled Rome, and both the senate
and the magistracies were in the hands of a class
which, in defiance of the law, arrogated to itself the
title and the privileges of a nobility.[203] The ascendancy of the
senate is too obvious and familiar a fact to need much illustration
here. It was but rarely that the assembly was called upon
to decide questions of policy, and then the proposal was usually
made by the magistrate in obedience to the express directions
of the senate.[204] In the enormous majority of cases the matter
Ascendancy of the senate.was settled by a senatus consultum, without any reference to
the people at all. The assembly decides for war or peace,[205]
but the conduct of the war and the conditions of peace are
matters left to the senate (q.v.). Now and then the assembly
confers a command upon the man of its choice, or prolongs the
imperium of a magistrate,[206] but, as a rule, these and all questions
connected with foreign affairs are settled within the walls of
the senate-house.[207] It is the senate which year after year
assigns the commands and fixes the number and disposition of
the military forces,[208] directs the organization of a new province,[209]
conducts negotiations, and forms alliances. Within Italy,
though its control of affairs was less exclusive, we find that,
besides supervising the ordinary current business of administration,
the senate decides questions connected with the Italian
allies, sends out colonies, allots lands, and directs the suppression
of disorders. Lastly, both in Italy and abroad it managed
the finances.[210] Inseparably connected with this monopoly of
affairs to the exclusion of the assembly was the control which
in practice, if not in theory, the senate exercised over the
magistrates. The latter had become what Cicero wrongly
declares they were always meant to be, merely the subordinate
ministers of the supreme council,[211] which assigned them their
departments, provided them with the necessary equipment,
claimed to direct their conduct, prolonged their commands,
and rewarded them with triumphs. It was now at once the
duty and the interest of a magistrate to be in auctoritate senatus,
“subject to the authority of the senate,” and even the once
formidable tribuni plebis are found during this period actively
and loyally supporting the senate, and acting as its spokesmen
in the assembly.[212]

The causes of this ascendancy of the senate are to be found firstly in the fact that the senate was the only body capable of conducting affairs in an age of incessant war. The
voters in the assembly, a numerous, widely scattered body, couldIts causes. not readily be called together, and when
assembled were very imperfectly qualified to decide momentous
questions of military strategy and foreign policy. The senate, on
the contrary, could be summoned in a moment,[213] and included in
its ranks all the skilled statesmen and soldiers of the commonwealth.
The subordination of the magistrates was equally
the result of circumstances, for, as the numbers of the magistrates,
and also the area of government, increased, some central
controlling power became absolutely necessary to prevent
collisions between rival authorities, and to secure a proper
division of labour, as well as to enforce the necessary concert
and co-operation.[214] No such power could be found anywhere
in the republican system but in the senate, standing as it
necessarily did in the closest relations with the magistrate,
and composed as it was increasingly of men who were or had
been in office.

Once more, behind both senate and magistrates, lay the whole power and influence of the new nobility.[215] These nobiles were essentially distinct from the older and more legitimate patrician aristocracy.The nobiles.

608. Every patrician was of course noble, but the majority of the “noble families” in 146 were not patrician but plebeian.[216] The title had been gradually appropriated, since the opening of the magistracies, by those families whose members had held curule office, and had thereby acquired the ius imaginum. It was thus in theory within the reach of any citizen who could win election even to the curule aedileship, and, moreover, it carried with it no legal privileges whatsoever. Gradually,
however, the ennobled plebeian families drew together, and
combined with the older patrician gentes to form a distinct
order. Office brought wealth and prestige, and both wealth
and prestige were liberally employed in securing for this select
circle a monopoly of political power, and excluding new men.[217]
Already by the close of the period it was rare for any one but
a noble to find his way into high office or into the senate. The
senate and magistrates are the mouthpieces of this order, and
identified with it in policy and interest. Lastly, it must be
allowed that both the senate and the nobility had to some
extent justified their power by the use they made of it. It
was their tenacity of purpose and devoted patriotism which
had carried Rome through the dark days of the Hannibalic
War. The heroes of the struggle with Carthage belonged to
the leading families; the disasters at the Trasimene Lake and at
Cannae were associated with the blunders of popular favourites.

From the first, however, there was an inherent weakness in
this senatorial government. It had no sound constitutional
Weakness of the senatorial government.
basis, and with the removal of its accidental supports
it fell to the ground. Legally the senate had no
positive authority. It could merely advise the
magistrate when asked to do so, and its decrees were strictly
only suggestions to the magistrate, which he was at
liberty to accept or reject as he chose.[218] It had, it is true,
become customary for the magistrate not only to ask the
senate's advice on all important points, but to follow it when
given. But it was obvious that if this custom were weakened,
and the magistrates chose to act independently, the senate was
powerless. It might indeed anathematize[219] the refractory
official, or hamper him if it could by setting in motion against
him a colleague or the tribunes, but it could do no more, and
these measures failed just where the senate's control was most
needed and most difficult to maintain—in its relations with the
generals and governors of provinces abroad. The virtual
608.
independence of the proconsul was before 146 already
exciting the jealousy of the senate and endangering its
supremacy.[220] Nor again had the senate any legal hold over the
assembly. Except in certain specified cases, it rested with the
magistrate to decide whether any question should be settled by
a decree of the senate or a vote of the assembly.[221] If he decided
to make a proposal to the assembly, he was not bound except
by custom to obtain the previous approval of the
senate,[222] and
the constitution set no limits to the power of the assembly to
decide any question whatsoever that was laid before it.

587.
From 167, at least, onwards, there were increasing
indications that both the acquiescence of the people in
senatorial government and the loyalty of the magistrates to the
senate were failing. The absorbing excitement of the great wars
had died away; the economic and social disturbance and distress
which they produced were creating a growing feeling of
discontent; and at the same time the senate provoked inquiries
into its title to govern by its failure any longer to govern well.
In the East there was confusion; in the West a single native
chieftain defied the power which had crushed Carthage. At
home the senate was becoming more and more simply an organ
of the nobility, and the nobility were becoming every year more
exclusive, more selfish, and less capable and
unanimous.[223]
But if the senate was not to govern, the difficulty arose of finding
an efficient substitute, and it was this difficulty that mainly
determined the issue of the struggles which convulsed Rome from
621-705.
133 to 49. As the event showed, neither the assembly
nor the numerous and disorganized magistracy was
equal to the work; the magistrates were gradually pushed aside
in favour of a more centralized authority, and the former became
only the means by which this new authority was first encouraged
in opposition to the senate and finally established in a position
of impregnable strength. The assembly which made Pompey and
Caesar found out too late that it could not unmake them.

It is possible that these constitutional and administrative
Effects of conquest on Roman society: the new wealth.
difficulties would not have proved so rapidly fatal to the
Republic had not its very foundations been sapped
by the changes which followed more or less directly on
the conquests of the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. For
the opening of the world to Rome, and of Rome to
the world, produced a radical change in the structure
of Roman society. The subjugation of the Mediterranean
countries, by placing at the disposal of Rome the vast natural
resources of the West and the accumulated treasures of the
East, caused a rapid rise in the standard of wealth and a marked
change in its distribution. The Roman state was enabled to
dispense with the direct taxation of its citizens,[224] since it derived
all the revenue which it needed from the subject countries. But
the wealth drawn from the provinces by the state was trifling
in amount compared with that which flowed into the pockets of
individual citizens. Not only was the booty taken in war
largely appropriated by the Roman commanders and their
men, but a host of money-makers settled upon the conquered
provinces and exploited them for their profit. The nobles
engaged in the task of administration, the contractors (publicani)
who farmed the revenues, and the “men of business” (negotiatores)
who, as money-lenders, merchants or speculators, penetrated
to every corner of the Empire, reaped a rich harvest at
the expense of the provincials. Farming in Italy on the old
lines became increasingly laborious and unprofitable owing to
the importation of foreign corn and foreign slaves,[225] and capitalists
sought easier methods of acquiring wealth. If this had
meant that capital was expended in developing the natural resources
of the provinces, the result would have been to increase
the prosperity of the countries subject to Rome; but it was not
so. The Roman negotiatores, who were often merely the
agents of the great families of Rome, drained the accumulated
wealth of the provinces by lending money to the subject communities
at exorbitant rates of interest. Cicero, for example,
found when governor of Cilicia that M. Junius Brutus had lent
a large sum to the people of Salamis in Cyprus at 48% compound
interest; and we cannot suppose that this was an
exceptional case. Such practices as these, together with the
wasteful and oppressive system of tax-farming, and the deliberate
extortions carried on by senatorial governors, reduced
the flourishing cities of the Greek East, within the space of two
generations, to utter economic exhaustion.

But the reaction of the same process on Rome herself had far
more important consequences. The whole structure of Roman
Accentuation of class distinctions.
society was altered, and the equality and homogeneity
which had once been its chief characteristics were
destroyed. The Roman nobles had not merely ceased,
as in old days, to till their own farms; they had found
a means of enriching themselves beyond the dreams of avarice,
and when they returned from the government of a province it
was to build sumptuous villas, filled with the spoils of Greece
and Asia, to surround themselves with troops of slaves and
dependents, and to live rather as princes than as citizens of
a republic. The publicani and negotiatores formed a second
order in the state, which rivalled the first in wealth and coveted
a share in its political supremacy; while the third estate, the
plebs urbana, was constantly increasing in numbers and at the
same time sinking into the condition of an idle proletariat. The
accentuation of class distinctions is indeed inevitable in a
capitalist society, such as that of Rome was now becoming.
But the process was fraught with grave political danger owing
to the peculiarities of the Roman constitution, which rested in
theory on the ultimate sovereignty of the people, who were in
practice represented by the city mob. To win the support of
the plebs became a necessity for ambitious politicians, and the
means employed for this end poisoned the political life of Rome.
The wealth derived from the provinces was freely spent in
bribery,[226] and the populace of Rome was encouraged to claim as
the price of its support a share in the spoils of empire.

It was not only the structure and composition of Roman
society that underwent a transformation. The victory of
The new learning and manners.
Rome in her struggle for supremacy in the
Mediterranean basin had been largely due to the powerful
conservative forces by which her institutions were
preserved from decay. Respect for the mos majorum,
or ancestral custom, imposed an effective check on the desire
for innovation. Though personal religion, in the deeper sense,
was foreign to the Roman temperament, there was a genuine
belief in the gods whose favour had made Rome great in the
past and would uphold her in the future so long as she
trod in the old paths of loyalty and devotion. Above all,
the healthy moral traditions of early Rome were maintained
by the discipline of the family, resting on the supreme authority
of the father—the patria potestas—and the powerful influence
of the mother, to whom the early training of the child was
entrusted.[227] Finally, the institution of the censorship, backed
as it was by the mighty force of public opinion, provided a
deterrent which prevented any flagrant deviation from the
accepted standard of morals. All this was changed by the
influence of Greek civilization, with which Rome was first
brought face to face in the 3rd century B.C. owing to her
relations with Magna Graecia. At first the results of contact
with the older and more brilliant culture of Hellas were on the
whole good. In the 2nd century B.C., when constant intercourse
was established with the communities of Greece proper and
of Asia Minor, “philhellenism” became a passion, which was
strongest in the best minds of the day and resulted in a quickened
intellectual activity, wider sympathies and a more humane
life. But at the same time the “new learning” was a disturbing
and unsettling force. The Roman citizen was confronted
with new doctrines in politics and religion, and initiated into
the speculations of critical philosophy.[228] Under the influence
of this powerful solvent the fabric of tradition embodied in the
mos majorum fell to pieces; a revolt set in against Roman
discipline and Roman traditions of self-effacement, and the
craving for individual distinction asserted itself with irresistible
vehemence. As it had been in the days of the “Sophistic”
movement at Athens, so it was now with Rome; a higher
education, which, owing to its expense, was necessarily confined
to the wealthier classes, interposed between the upper and lower
ranks of society a barrier even more effectual than that set up
by differences of material condition, and by releasing the individual
from the trammels of traditional morality, gave his
ambition free course. The effect on private morals may be
gauged by the vehemence with which the reactionary
opposition,
headed by M. Porcius Cato (consul, 195 B.C.; censor, 184
559, 570.B.C.), inveighed against the new fashions, and by the
list of measures passed to check the growth of luxury
and licence, and to exclude the foreign teachers of the new
learning.[229] It was all in vain. The art of rhetoric, which was
studied through the medium of Greek treatises and Greek
models, furnished the Roman noble with weapons of attack
and defence of which he was not slow to avail himself in the
forum and the senate-house. In the science of money-making,
which had been elaborated under the Hellenistic monarchies,
the Roman capitalists proved apt pupils of their Greek teachers.
Among the lower classes, contact with foreign slaves and freedmen,
with foreign worships and foreign vices, produced a love
of novelty which no legislation could check. Even amongst
women there were symptoms of revolt against the old order,
which showed itself in a growing freedom of manners and impatience
of control,[230] the marriage tie was relaxed,[231] and the
respect for mother and wife, which had been so powerful a
factor in the maintenance of the Roman standard of morals,
was grievously diminished. Thus Rome was at length brought
face to face with a moral and economic crisis which a modern
historian has described in the words: “Italy was living through
the fever of moral disintegration and incoherence which assails
all civilized societies that are rich in the manifold resources of
culture and enjoyment, but tolerate few or no restraints on
the feverish struggle of contending appetites.” In this struggle
the Roman Republic perished, and personal government took
its place. The world had outgrown the city-state and its
political machinery, and as the notions of federalism (on any
large scale) and representative government had not yet come
into being, no solution of the problem was possible save that
of absolutism. But a far stronger resistance would have been
opposed to political revolution by the republican system had not
public morals been sapped by the influences above described.
Political corruption was reduced to a science[232] for the benefit
of individuals who were often faced with the alternatives of
ruin or revolution;[233] there was no longer any body of sound
public opinion to which, in the last resort, appeal could be made;
and, long before the final catastrophe took place, Roman society
itself had become, in structure and temper, thoroughly
unrepublican.

The first systematic attack upon the senatorial government
is connected with the names of Tiberius and Gaius GracchusThe Gracchi, 133-21 = 621-33.
(q.v.), and its immediate occasion was an attempt to
deal with no less a danger than the threatened
disappearance of the class to which of all others Rome
owed most in the past.[234] The small landholders
throughout the greater part of Italy were sinking deeper into
ruin under the pressure of accumulated difficulties. The
Hannibalic war had laid waste their fields and thinned their
numbers, nor when peace returned to Italy did it bring with it
any revival of prosperity. The heavy burden of military
service still pressed ruinously upon them,[235] and in addition
they were called upon to compete with the foreign corn
imported from beyond the sea, and with the foreign slave-labour
purchased by the capital of wealthier men.[236] Farming became
unprofitable, and the hard laborious life with its scanty returns
was thrown into still darker relief when compared with the
stirring life of the camps with its opportunities of booty, or
with the cheap provisions, frequent largesses and gay spectacles
to be had in the large towns. The small holders went off to
follow the eagles or swell the proletariat of the cities, and their
holdings were left to run waste or merged in the vineyards,
olive yards and above all in the great cattle farms of the rich,
and their own place was taken by slaves. The evil was worst
in Etruria and in southern Italy; but everywhere it was serious
enough to demand the earnest attention of Roman statesmen.
Of its existence the government had received plenty of warning
in the declining numbers of able-bodied males returned at the
census,[237] in the increasing difficulties of recruiting for the
legions,[238] in servile outbreaks in Etruria and Apulia,[239] and
554-94. 574. 594.
between 200 and 160 a good deal was attempted by
way of remedy. In addition to the foundation of
twenty colonies,[240] there were frequent allotments of land to
veteran soldiers, especially in Apulia and Samnium.[241] In
180, 40,000 Ligurians were removed from their homes
and settled on vacant lands once the property of a
Samnite tribe,[242] and in 160 the Pomptine marshes
were drained for the purpose of cultivation.[243] But these efforts
were only partially successful. The colonies planted in
Cisalpine Gaul and in Picenum flourished, but of the others
the majority slowly dwindled away, and two required recolonizing
only eight years after their foundation.[244] The
veterans who received land were unfitted to make good farmers;
and large numbers, on the first opportunity, gladly returned
594. 597. 621.
as volunteers to a soldier's life. Moreover, after 160
even these efforts ceased, and with the single exception
of the colony of Auximum in Picenum (157) nothing
was done to check the spread of the evil, until in 133
Tiberius Gracchus, on his election to the tribunate, set his hand
to the work.

The remedy proposed by Gracchus[245] amounted in effect to
the resumption by the state of as much of the “common land”
Tiberius Gracchus.
as was not held in occupation by authorized persons
and conform ably to the provisions of the Licinian
law,[246] and the distribution in allotments of the land
thus rescued for the community from the monopoly of a few.
It was a scheme which could quote in its favour ancient precedent
as well as urgent necessity. Of the causes which led
to its ultimate failure something will be said later on; for the
present we must turn to the constitutional conflict which it
provoked. The senate from the first identified itself with the
interests of the wealthy occupiers, and Tiberius found himself
forced into a struggle with that body, which had been no part
of his original plan. He fell back on the legislative sovereignty
of the assembly; he resuscitated the half-forgotten powers of
interference vested in the tribunate in order to paralyse
the action of the senatorial magistrates, and finally lost his
life in an attempt to make good one of the weak points in the
tribune's position by securing his own re-election for a second
year. But the conflict did not end with his death. It was
renewed on a wider scale, and with a more deliberate aim by his
Gaius Gracchus. 631.
brother Gaius, who on his election to the tribunate (123)
at once came forward as the avowed enemy of the
senate.[247] The latter suddenly found its control of
the administration threatened at a variety of points. On
the invitation of the popular tribune the assembly proceeded
to restrict the senate's freedom of action in assigning the provinces.[248]
It regulated the taxation of the province of Asia[249]
and altered the conditions of military service.[250] In home
affairs it inflicted two serious blows on the senate's authority
by declaring the summary punishment of Roman citizens by
the consuls on the strength of a senatus consultum to be a
violation of the law of appeal,[251] and by taking out of the senate's
hands the control of the newly established court for the trial
of cases of magisterial misgovernment in the
provinces.[252]
Tiberius had committed the mistake of relying too exclusively
on the support of one section only of the community; his
brother endeavoured to enlist on the popular side every available
ally. The Latins and Italians had opposed an agrarian
scheme which took from them land which they had come to
regard as rightfully theirs, and gave them no share in the
benefit of the allotments.[253] Gaius not only removed this latter
grievance,[254] but ardently supported and himself brought forward
the first proposals made in Rome for their
enfranchisement.[255]
The indifference of the city populace, to whom the prospect of
small holdings in a remote district of Italy was not a tempting
one, was overcome by the establishment of regular monthly
doles of corn at a low price.[256] Finally, the men of business—the
publicans, merchants and money-lenders—were conciliated
by the privilege granted to them of collecting the tithes of the
new province of Asia, and placed in direct rivalry with the
senate by the substitution of men of their own class as judges
in the “quaestio de repetundis,” in place of senators.[257] The
organizer of this concerted attack upon the position of the
senate fell, like his brother, in a riot.

The agrarian reforms of the two Gracchi had little permanent
effect.[258] Even in the lifetime of Gaius the clause in his brother's
Failure of the attempt at agrarian reform. 636. 643.
law rendering the new holdings inalienable was repealed,
and the process of absorption recommenced.
In 118 a stop was put to further allotment of occupied
lands, and finally, in 111, the whole position of the
agrarian question was altered by a law which
converted all land still held in occupation into private
land.[259] The old controversy as to the proper use of
the lands of the community was closed by this act of alienation.
The controversy in future turns, not on the right of the poor
citizens to the state lands, but on the expediency of purchasing
other lands for distribution at the cost of the
treasury.[260]

But, though the agrarian reform failed, the political conflict
it had provoked continued, and the lines on which it was waged
were in the main those laid down by Gaius Gracchus. The
sovereignty of the assembly continued to be the watchword
of the popular party, and a free use of the tribunician powers
of interference and of legislation remained the most effective
means of accomplishing their aims.

Ten years after the death of Gaius the populares once more
summoned up courage to challenge the supremacy of the
Marius, 118-100 = 636-54. 636. 642. 643. 645.
senate; but it was on a question of foreign administration
that the conflict was renewed. The course of
affairs in the client state of Numidia since Micipsa's
death in 118 had been such as to discredit a stronger
government than that of the senate.[261] In defiance of Roman
authority, and relying on the influence of his own well-spent
gold, Jugurtha had murdered both his legitimate rivals, Hiempsal
and Adherbal, and made himself master of Numidia. The
declaration of war wrung from the senate (112) by
popular indignation had been followed by the corruption
of a consul[262] (111) and the crushing defeat of
the proconsul Albinus.[263] On the news of this crowning disgrace
the storm burst, and on the proposal of the tribunes a
commission of inquiry was appointed into the conduct of the
war.[264] But the popular leaders did not stop here. Q. Caecilius
Metellus, who as consul (109) had succeeded to the command
in Numidia, was an able soldier but a rigid
aristocrat; and they now resolved to improve their success by
entrusting the command instead to a genuine son of the people.
Their choice fell on Gaius Marius (see Marius), an experienced
officer and administrator, but a man of humble birth, wholly
illiterate, and one who, though no politician, was by temperament
and training a hater of the polished and effeminate nobles
who filled the senate.[265] He was triumphantly elected, and, in
spite of a decree of the senate continuing Metellus as proconsul,
he was entrusted by a vote of the assembly with the charge of
the war against Jugurtha (q.v.).[266]

Jugurtha was vanquished; and Marius, who had been a
second time elected consul in his absence, arrived at Rome in
650. 652. 653.
January 104, bringing the captive prince with him in
chains.[267] But further triumphs awaited the popular
hero. The Cimbri and Teutones were at the gates of Italy;
they had four times defeated the senatorial generals, and Marius
was called upon to save Rome from a second invasion of the
barbarians.[268] After two years of suspense the victory at Aquae
Sextiae (102), followed by that on the Raudine plain
(101), put an end to the danger by the annihilation of
the invading hordes; and Marius, now consul for the
fifth time, returned to Rome in triumph. There the popular
party welcomed him as a leader with all the prestige of a successful
general. Once more, however, they were destined to a brief
success followed by disastrous defeat. Marius became for the
sixth time consul;[269] of the two popular leaders Glaucia became
Saturninus and the Appuleian laws.
praetor and Saturninus tribune. But Marius and his
allies were not statesmen of the stamp of the Gracchi;
and the laws proposed by Saturninus had evidently
no serious aim in view other than that of harassing
the senate. His corn law merely reduced the price
fixed in 123 for the monthly dole of corn, and the
main point of his agrarian law lay in the clause appended
to it requiring all senators to swear to observe its
provisions.[270]
The laws were carried, but the triumph of the popular
leaders was short-lived. Their recklessness and violence had
alienated all classes in Rome; and their period of office was
drawing to a close. At the elections fresh rioting took place,
and Marius as consul was called upon by the senate to protect
the state against his own partisans. Saturninus and Glaucia
surrendered, but while the senate was discussing their fate they
were surrounded and murdered by their opponents.

The popular party had been worsted once more in their
struggle with the senate, but none the less their alliance with
Marius, and the position in which their votes placed him, marked
an epoch in the history of the revolution. The transference
of the political leadership to a consul who was nothing if
not a soldier was at once a confession of the insufficiency of
the purely civil authority of the tribunate and a dangerous encouragement
of military interference in political controversies.
The consequences were already foreshadowed by the special
provisions made by Saturninus for Marius's veterans, and in
the active part taken by them in the passing of his laws.
Indirectly, too, Marius, though no politician, played an
Military reforms of Marius.
important part in this new departure. His military
reforms[271] at once democratized the army and attached
it more closely to its leader for the time being. He
swept away the last traces of civil distinctions of rank
or wealth within the legion, admitted to its ranks all classes, and
substituted voluntary enlistment under a popular general for the
old-fashioned compulsory levy. The efficiency of the legion was
increased at the cost of a complete severance of the ties which
bound it to the civil community and to the civil authorities.

The next important crisis was due partly to the rivalry which
had been growing more bitter each year between the senate and
the commercial class, and partly to the long-impending question
of the enfranchisement of the Italian allies. The publicani,
negotiatores and others, who constituted what was now becoming
known as the equestrian order (see Equites), had made unscrupulous
use of their control of the courts and especially of
the quaestio de repetundis against their natural rivals, the
official class in the provinces. The threat of prosecution before
a hostile jury was held over the head of every governor, legate
and quaestor who ventured to interfere with their operations in
the provinces. The average official preferred to connive at
their exactions; the bolder ones paid with fines and even exile
662. Discontent of the Italian allies.
for their courage. In 92 the necessity for a reform was
proved beyond a doubt by the scandalous condemnation
of P. Rutilius Rufus,[272] ostensibly on a charge of extortion,
in reality as the reward of his efforts to check the
extortions of the Roman equites in Asia. The
difficulties of the Italian question were more serious. That
the Italian allies were discontented was notorious. After
nearly two centuries of close alliance, of common dangers and
victories, they now eagerly coveted as a boon that complete
amalgamation with Rome which they had at first resented as
a dishonour. But, unfortunately, Rome had grown more exclusive
in proportion as the value set upon Roman citizenship
increased. During the last forty years feelings of hope and
disappointment had rapidly succeeded each other; Marcus
Fulvius Flaccus, Gaius Gracchus, Saturninus, had all held out
promises of relief—and nothing had yet been done. On each
occasion they had crowded to Rome, full of eager expectation,
only to be harshly ejected from the city by the consul's orders.[273]
The justice of their claims could hardly be denied, the danger of
continuing to ignore them was obvious—yet the difficulties in
the way of granting them were formidable in the extreme, and
from a higher than a merely selfish point of view there was much
to be said against the revolution involved in so sudden and
enormous an enlargement of the citizen body.

Marcus Livius Drusus (q.v.), who as tribune gallantly took up
the task of reform, is claimed by Cicero[274] as a member of that
Marcus Livius Drusus 91 = 663.
party of the centre to which he belonged himself.
Noble, wealthy and popular, he seems to have hoped
to be able by the weight of his position and character
to rescue the burning questions of the day from the
grasp of extreme partisans and to settle them peacefully and
equitably. But he, like Cicero after him, had to find to his
cost that there was no room in the fierce strife of Roman politics
for moderate counsels. His proposal to reform the law courts
excited the equestrian order and their friends in the senate to
fury. The agrarian and corn laws which he coupled with
it[275]
alienated many more in the senate, and roused the old
anti-popular party feeling; finally, his known negotiations with the
Italians were eagerly misrepresented to the jealous and excited
people as evidence of complicity with a widespread conspiracy
against Rome. His laws were carried, but the senate pronounced
The Social War, 90-89 = 664-65.
them null and void.[276] Drusus was denounced in the
senate house as a traitor, and on his way home was
struck down by the hand of an unknown assassin. His
assassination was the signal for an outbreak which
had been secretly prepared for some time before.
Throughout the highlands of central and southern Italy the
flower of the Italian peoples rose as one man.[277] Etruria and
Umbria held aloof; the isolated Latin colonies stood firm; but
the Sabellian clans, north and south, the Latinized Marsi and
Paeligni, as well as the Oscan-speaking Samnites and Lucanians,
rushed to arms. No time was lost in proclaiming their plans
for the future. A new Italian state was to be formed. The
Paelignian town of Corfinium was selected as its capital and rechristened
with the proud name of Italica. All Italians were to
be citizens of this new metropolis, and here were to be the place
of assembly and the senate house. A senate of 500 members
and a magistracy resembling that of Rome completed a constitution
which adhered closely to the very political traditions which
its authors had most reason to abjure.

Now, as always in the face of serious danger, the action of
Rome was prompt and resolute. Both consuls took the
field;[278]
with each were five legates, among them the veteran Marius and
his destined rival L. Cornelius Sulla, and even freedmen were
pressed into service with the legions. But the first year's
campaign opened disastrously. In central Italy the northern
Sabellians, and in the south the Samnites, defeated the forces
opposed to them. And though before the end of the year Marius
and Sulla in the north, and the consul Caesar himself in Campania,
succeeded in inflicting severe blows on the enemy, and on
the Marsi especially, it is not surprising that, with an empty
treasury, with the insurgents' strength still unbroken, and with
rumours of disaffection in the loyal districts, opinion in Rome
should have turned in the direction of the more liberal policy
which had been so often scornfully rejected and in favour of
some compromise which should check the spread of the revolt, and
664. Lex Julia and lex Plautia Papiria. 665.
possibly sow discord among their enemies. Towards the
close of the year 90 the consul L. Julius Caesar (killed
by Fimbria in 87) carried the lex Julia,[279] by which
the Roman franchise was offered to all communities
which had not as yet revolted; early in the next year
(89) the Julian law was supplemented by the lexPlautia Papiria, introduced by two of the tribunes,
M. Plautius Silvanus and C. Papirius Carbo Arvina, which
enacted that any citizen of an allied community then domiciled
in Italy might obtain the franchise by giving in his name to a
praetor in Rome within sixty days. A third law (lex Calpurnia),
apparently passed at the same time, empowered Roman magistrates
in the field to bestow the franchise there and then upon
all who were willing to receive it. This sudden opening of the
closed gates of Roman citizenship was completely successful,
and its effects were at once visible in the diminished vigour of
665.
the insurgents. By the end of 89 the Samnites and
Lucanians were left alone in their obstinate hostility
to Rome, and neither, thanks to Sulla's brilliant campaign
in Samnium, had for the moment any strength left for active
aggression.

The termination of the Social War brought with it no peace
in Rome. The old quarrels were renewed with increased
bitterness, and the newly enfranchised Italians themselves
complained as bitterly of the restriction[280] which robbed them
of their due share of political influence by allowing them to vote
only in a specified number of tribes. The senate itself was distracted
by violent personal rivalries—and all these feuds, animosities
and grievances were aggravated by the widespread
economic distress and ruin which affected all classes.[281] Lastly,
war with Mithradates VI. had been declared; it was notorious
that the privilege of commanding the force to be sent against
him would be keenly contested, and that the contest would lie
between the veteran Marius and L. Cornelius Sulla.[282]

It was in an atmosphere thus charged with the elements
of disturbance that P. Sulpicius Rufus as tribune[283] brought
P. Sulpicius Rufus, 88 = 666.
forward his laws. He proposed—(1) that the
command of the Mithradatic war should be given to
Marius, (2) that the new citizens should be distributed
through all the tribes, (3) that the freedmen should
no longer be confined to the four city tribes, (4) that any
senator owing more than 2000 denarii should lose his seat,
(5) that those exiled on suspicion of complicity with the Italian
revolt should be recalled. These proposals inevitably provoked
a storm, and both sides were ominously ready for violent
measures. The consuls, in order to prevent legislation, proclaimed
a public holiday. Sulpicius replied by arming his
followers and driving the consuls from the forum. The proclamation
was withdrawn and the laws carried, but Sulpicius's
triumph was short-lived. From Nola in Campania, where lay
the legions commanded by him in the Social War, Sulla advanced
on Rome, and for the first time a Roman consul entered the
city at the head of the legions of the Republic. Resistance was
hopeless. Marius and Sulpicius fled,[284] and Sulla, summoning
the assembly of the centuries, proposed the measures he considered
necessary for the public security, the most important
being a provision that the sanction of the senate should be
necessary before any proposal was introduced to the assembly.[285]667. Marius and Cinna.
Then, after waiting in Rome long enough to hold the
consular elections, he left for Asia early in 87.

Sulla had conquered, but his victory cost the Republic dear.
He had first taught political partisans to look for final success,
not to a majority of votes in the forum or campus,
but to the swords of the soldiery. The lesson was well
learnt. Shortly after his departure L. Cornelius
Cinna as consul revived the proposals of Sulpicius;[286] his
colleague, Gnaeus Octavius, at the head of an armed force
fell upon the new citizens who had collected in crowds to vote,
and the forum was heaped high with the bodies of the
slain.[287]
Cinna fled, but fled, like Sulla, to the legions. When the senate
declared him deposed from his consulship, he replied by invoking
the aid of the soldiers in Campania in behalf of the violated
rights of the people and the injured dignity of the consulship,
and, like Sulla, found them ready to follow where he led. The
neighbouring Italian communities, who had lost many citizens
in the recent massacre, sent their new champion men and
money;[288] while from Africa, whither he had escaped after
Sulla's entry into Rome, came Marius with 1000 Numidian
horsemen. The senate had prepared for a desperate defence,
but fortune was adverse, and after a brief resistance they gave
way. Cinna was acknowledged as consul, the sentence of outlawry
passed on Marius was revoked and Cinna and Marius
entered Rome with their troops. Marius's thirst for revenge
was gratified by a frightful massacre, and he lived long enough
to be nominated consul for the seventh time. But he held his
668. 669, 670.
consulship only a few weeks. Early in 86 he died, and
for the next three years Cinna ruled Rome. Constitutional
government was virtually suspended. For 85 and
84 Cinna nominated himself and a trusted colleague as
consuls.[289]
The state was, as Cicero[290] says, without lawful authority.[291] One
important matter was carried through—the registration in all
the tribes of the newly enfranchised Italians,[292] but beyond this
little was done. The attention of Cinna and his friends was in
truth engrossed by the ever-present dread of Sulla's return
668. 669. The return of Sulla, 83 = 671.
from Asia. The consul of 86, L. Valerius Flaccus (who
had been consul with Marius in 100 B.C.), sent out to
supersede him, was murdered by his own soldiers at
Nicomedia.[293]
In 85 Sulla, though disowned by his government, concluded
a peace with Mithradates.[294] In 84, after settling
affairs in Asia and crushing Flaccus's successor, C. Flavius
Fimbria, he crossed into Greece, and in the spring of
return of 83 landed at Brundusium with 40,000 soldiers and a
large following of émigré nobles. Cinna was
dead,[295]
murdered like Flaccus by his mutinous soldiers; his
most trusted colleague, Cn. Papirius Carbo, was commanding
as proconsul in Cisalpine Gaul; and the resistance offered to
Sulla's advance was slight. At Capua, Sulla routed the forces
of one consul, Gaius Norbanus; at Teanum the troops of the
other went over in a body to the side of the outlawed proconsul.
After a winter spent in Campania he pressed forward to Rome,
672.
defeated the younger Marius (consul, 82) near Praeneste,
and entered the city without further opposition. In
north Italy the success of his lieutenants, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius
(son of Metellus Numidicus), Cn. Pompeius and Marcus Crassus,
had been fully as decisive. Cisalpine Gaul, Umbria and Etruria
had all been won for Sulla, and the two principal leaders on the
other side, Carbo and Norbanus, had each fled, one to Rhodes,
the other to Africa. Only one foe remained to be conquered.
The Samnites and Lucanians whom Cinna had conciliated, and
who saw in Sulla their bitterest foe, were for the last time in
arms, and had already joined forces with the remains of
the Marian army close to Rome. The decisive battle was
fought under the walls of the city, and ended in the complete
defeat of the Marians and Italians (battle of the Colline Gate).[296]

For a period of nearly ten years Rome and Italy had been
distracted by civil war. Sulla was now called upon to heal
the divisions which rent the state asunder, to set in working
Sulla's dictatorship, 81 = 673.
again the machinery of civil government and above
all so to modify it as to meet the altered conditions,
and to fortify it against the dangers which visibly
threatened it in the future. The real charge against
Sulla[297] is not that he failed to accomplish all this, for to do so
was beyond the powers even of a man so able, resolute and
self-confident as Sulla, armed though he was with absolute
authority and backed by overwhelming military strength and
the prestige of unbroken success. He stands convicted rather
of deliberately aggravating some and culpably ignoring others
of the evils he should have tried to cure, and of contenting
himself with a party triumph when he should have aimed at
the regeneration and confirmation of the whole state. His
victory was instantly followed, not by any measures of conciliation,
but by a series of massacres, prescriptions and confiscations,
of which almost the least serious consequence was the
immediate loss of life which they entailed.[298] From this time
forward the fear of proscription and confiscation
Effects of the Sulla proscriptions.
recurred as a possible consequence of every political
crisis, and it was with difficulty that Caesar himself
dissipated the belief that his victory would be followed
by a Sullan reign of terror. The legacy of hatred and
discontent which Sulla left behind him was a constant source
of disquiet and danger. In the children of the proscribed,
whom he excluded from holding office, and the dispossessed
owners of the confiscated lands, every agitator found ready and
willing allies.[299] The moneyed men of the equestrian order
were more than ever hostile to the senatorial government,
which they now identified with the man who cherished towards
them a peculiar hatred,[300] and whose creatures had hunted them
down like dogs. The attachment which the new Italian citizens
might in time have learnt to feel for the old republican constitution
was nipped in the bud by the massacres at Praeneste
and Norba, by the harsh treatment of the ancient towns of
Etruria, and by the ruthless desolation of Samnium and
Lucania.[301] Quite as fatal were the results to the economic
prosperity of the peninsula. Sulla's confiscations, following
on the civil and social wars, opened the doors wide for
a long train of evils. The veterans whom he planted on the
lands he had seized[302] did nothing for agriculture, and swelled
the growing numbers of the turbulent and
discontented.[303] The
“Sullan men” became as great an object of fear and dislike as
the “Sullan reign.”[304] The latifundia increased with startling
rapidity—whole territories passing into the hands of greedy
partisans.[305] Wide tracts of land, confiscated but never allotted,
ran to waste.[306] In all but a few districts of Italy the free population
finally and completely disappeared from the open country;
and life and property were rendered insecure by the brigandage
which now developed unchecked, and in which the herdsmen
slaves played a prominent part. The outbreaks of Spartacus in
681. Constitutional legislation of Sulla.
73, and of Catiline ten years later, were significant
commentaries on this part of Sulla's work.[307] His
constitutional legislation, while it included many useful
administrative reforms, is marked by as violent a spirit
of partisanship, and as apparently wilful a
blindness to the future. The re-establishment on a legal
basis of the ascendancy which custom had so long accorded to the
senate was his main object. With this purpose he had already,
666.
when consul in 88, made the senatus auctoritas legally
necessary for proposals to the assembly. He now as
dictator[308] followed this up by crippling the power of the magistracy,
which had been the most effective weapon in the hands of
the senate's opponents. The legislative freedom of the tribunes
was already hampered by the necessity of obtaining the senate's
sanction; in addition, Sulla restricted their wide powers of
interference (intercessio) to their original purpose of protecting
individual plebeians,[309] and discredited the office by prohibiting
a tribune from holding any subsequent office in the
state.[310] The
control of the courts (quaestiones perpetuae) was taken from the
equestrian order and restored to the senate.[311] To prevent the
people from suddenly installing and keeping in high office a
second Marius, he re-enacted the old law against
re-election,[312]
and made legally binding the custom which required a man
to mount up gradually to the consulship through the lower
offices.[313] His increase of the number of praetors from six to
eight,[314] and of quaestors to twenty,[315] though required by administrative
necessities, tended, by enlarging the numbers and
further dividing the authority of the magistrates, to render
them still more dependent upon the central direction of the
senate. Lastly, he replaced the pontifical and augural colleges
in the hands of the senatorial nobles, by enacting that vacancies
650.
in them should, as before the lex Domitia (104), be
filled up by co-optation.[316] It cannot be said that
Sulla was successful in fortifying the republican system
against the dangers which menaced it from without. He
accepted as an accomplished fact the enfranchisement of the
Italians,[317] but he made no provision to guard against the consequent
reduction of the comitia to an absurdity,[318] and with them
of the civic government which rested upon them, or to organize
an effective administrative system for the Italian
communities.[319]
Of all men, too, Sulla had the best reason to appreciate the
dangers to be feared from the growing independence of governors
and generals in the provinces, and from the transformation of
the old civic militia into a group of professional armies, devoted
only to a successful leader, and with the weakest possible sense
of allegiance to the state. He had himself, as proconsul of
Asia, contemptuously and successfully defied the home government,
and he, more than any other Roman general, had taught
his soldiers to look only to their leader, and to think only of
booty.[320] Yet, beyond a few inadequate regulations, there is no
evidence that Sulla dealt with these burning questions, the
settlement of which was among the greatest of the achievements
of Augustus.[321] One administrative reform of real importance
must, lastly, be set down to his credit. The judicial procedure
first established in 149 for the trial of cases of magisterial
605-673.
extortion in the provinces, and applied between 149
and 81 to cases of treason and bribery, Sulla extended
so as to bring under it the chief criminal offences, and thus laid
the foundations of the Roman criminal law.[322]

The Sullan system stood for nine years, and was then overthrown—as
it had been established—by a successful soldier.
Overthrow of the Sullan constitution, 70 = 684.
It was the fortune of Cn. Pompeius, a favourite officer
of Sulla, first of all to violate in his own person
the fundamental principles of the constitution
re-established by his old chief, and then to overturn it.
In Spain the Marian governor Q. Sertorius (see
Sertorius) had defeated one after another of the
proconsuls sent out by the senate, and was already in 77
master of all Hither Spain. To meet the crisis,
Pompey, who was not yet thirty, and had never held even
the quaestorship, was sent out to Spain with proconsular
authority.[323] Still Sertorius held out, until in 73 he was
681. 683. 681.
foully murdered by his own officers. The native tribes
who had loyally stood by him submitted, and Pompey
early in 71 returned with his troops to Italy, where,
during his absence in Spain, an event had occurred which had
shown Roman society with startling plainness how near it stood
to revolution. In 73 Spartacus,[324] a Thracian slave,
escaped with seventy others from a gladiators' training
school at Capua. In an incredibly short time he found himself
at the head of 70,000 runaway slaves, outlaws, brigands and
impoverished peasants, and for two years terrorized Italy,
routed the legions sent against him, and even threatened
Rome. He was at length defeated and slain by the praetor,
M. Licinius Crassus, in Apulia. In Rome itself the various
676.
classes and parties hostile to the Sullan system had,
ever since Sulla's death in 78, been incessantly agitating
for the repeal of his most obnoxious laws, and needed only
a leader in order successfully to attack a government discredited
by failure at home and abroad. With the return of Pompey
Pompey as consul. 684.
from Spain their opportunity came, Pompey, who
understood politics as little as Marius, was anxious
to obtain a triumph, the consulship for the next
year (70), and as the natural consequence of this
an important command in the East. The opposition
wanted his name and support, and a bargain was soon
struck. Pompey and with him Marcus Licinius Crassus, the real
conqueror of Spartacus, were elected consuls, almost in the
presence of their troops, which lay encamped outside the gates
in readiness to assist at the triumph and ovation granted to
their respective leaders. Pompey lost no time in performing
his part of the agreement. The tribunes regained their prerogatives.[325]
The “perpetual courts” (quaestiones perpetuae)
were taken out of the hands of the senatorial judices, who had
outdone the equestrian order in scandalous
corruption,[326] and
finally the censors, the first since 86 B.C., purged the senate of
the more worthless and disreputable of Sulla's
partisans.[327]
The victory was complete; but for the future its chief significance
lay in the clearness with which it showed that the final
decision in matters political lay with neither of the two great
parties in Rome, but with the holder of the military authority.
The tribunes ceased to be political leaders and became lieutenants
of the military commanders, and the change was fatal
to the dignity of politics in the city. Men became conscious
of the unreality of the old constitutional controversies, indifferent
to the questions which agitated the forum and the
curia, and contemptuously ready to alter or disregard the
constitution itself when it stood in the way of interests nearer
to their hearts.

When his consulship ended, Pompey impatiently awaited
at the hands of the politicians he had befriended the further
Gabinian and Manilian laws. 684-87. 687, 688.
gift of a foreign command. He declined an ordinary
province, and from the end of 70 to 67 he remained
at Rome in a somewhat affectedly dignified
seclusion.[328]
But in 67 and 66 the laws of Gabinius and Manilius
gave him all and more than all that he expected (see
Pompey). By the former he obtained the sole command
for three years against the Mediterranean
pirates.[329] He
was to have supreme authority over all Roman magistrates
in the provinces throughout the Mediterranean and over the
coasts for 50 miles inland. Fifteen legati, all of praetorian
rank, were assigned to him, with two hundred ships, and as
many troops as he thought desirable. The Manilian law transferred
from Lucullus and Glabrio to Pompey the conduct of the
Mithradatic War in Asia, and with it the entire control of Roman
policy and interests in the East.[330] The unrepublican character
of the position thus granted to Pompey, and the dangers of the
precedent established, were clearly enough pointed out by
such moderate men as Q. Lutatius Catulus, the “father of the
senate,” and by the orator Hortensius—but in vain. Both
laws were supported, not only by the tribunes and the populace,
but by the whole influence of the publicani and negotiatores,
whose interests in the East were at stake.

Pompey left Rome in 67. In a marvellously short space
of time he freed the Mediterranean from the Cilician pirates
and established Roman authority in Cilicia itself. He then
crushed Mithradates, added Syria to the list of Roman provinces,
and led the Roman legions to the Euphrates and the Caspian,
leaving no power capable of disputing with Rome the sovereignty
687, 692. Caesar. 684.
of western Asia.[331] He did not return to Italy till
towards the end of 62. The interval was marked
in Rome by the rise to political importance of Caesar and
Cicero, and by Catiline's attempt at revolution. As
the nephew of Marius and the son-in-law of Cinna,
Caesar possessed a strong hereditary claim to the
leadership of the popular and Marian party.[332] He had already
taken part in the agitation for the restoration of the tribunate;
he had supported the Manilian law; and, when Pompey's
withdrawal left the field clear for other competitors, he stepped
at once into the front rank on the popular side.[333] He took upon
himself, as their nearest representative, the task of clearing
the memory and avenging the wrongs of the great popular
leaders, Marius, Cinna and Saturninus. He publicly reminded
the people of Marius's services, and set up again upon the
Capitol the trophies of the Cimbric War. He endeavoured to
bring to justice, not only the ringleaders in Sulla's bloody work
of proscription, but even the murderers of Saturninus, and vehemently
pleaded the cause of the children of the proscribed.
While thus carrying on in genuine Roman fashion the feud of
his family, he attracted the sympathies of the Italians by his
efforts to procure the Roman franchise for the Latin communities
beyond the Po, and won the affections of the populace in Rome
and its immediate neighbourhood by the splendour of the
689.
games which he gave as curule aedile (65), and by his
lavish expenditure upon the improvement of the
Appian Way. But these measures were with him only means
to the further end of creating for himself a position such as that
which Pompey had already won; and this ulterior aim he
pursued with an audacious indifference to constitutional forms
and usages. His coalition with Crassus, soon after Pompey's
departure, secured him an ally whose colossal wealth and wide
financial connexions were of inestimable value, and whose
vanity and inferiority of intellect rendered him a willing tool.
689. 691.
The story of his attempted coup d'état in January 65 is
probably false,[334] but it is evident that by the beginning
of 63 he was bent on reaping the reward of his exertions
by obtaining from the people an extraordinary command
abroad, which should secure his position before Pompey's
return; and the agrarian law proposed early that year by the
tribune P. Servilius Rullus had for its object the creation,
in favour of Caesar and Crassus, of a commission with powers
so wide as to place its members almost on a level with Pompey
himself.[335] It was at this moment when all seemed going well,
that Caesar's hopes were dashed to the ground by Catiline's
desperate outbreak, which not only discredited every one
connected with the popular party, but directed the suspicions
of the well-to-do classes against Caesar himself, as a possible
accomplice in Catiline's revolutionary schemes.[336]

The same wave of indignation and suspicion which for the
moment checked Caesar's rise carried Marcus Tullius Cicero to
Cicero.
the height of his fortunes. Cicero, as a politician, has
been equally misjudged by friends and foes. That
he was deficient in courage, that he was vain, and that he
attempted the impossible, may be admitted at once. But he
was neither a brilliant and unscrupulous adventurer nor an
aimless trimmer, nor yet a devoted champion merely of senatorial
ascendancy.[337] He was a representative man, with a numerous
following, and a policy which was naturally suggested to him
by the circumstances of his birth, connexions and profession,
and which, impracticable as it proved to be, was yet consistent,
intelligible and high-minded. Born at Arpinum, he cherished
like all Arpinates the memory of his great fellow-townsman
Marius, the friend of the Italians, the saviour of Italy and the
irreconcilable foe of Sulla and the nobles. A “municipal”
himself, his chosen friends and his warmest supporters were
found among the well-to-do classes in the Italian
towns.[338] Unpopular
with the Roman aristocracy, who despised him as a
peregrinus,[339] and with the Roman populace, he was the trusted
leader of the Italian middle class, “the true Roman people,”
as he proudly styles them. It was they who carried his election
691, 696. 705.
for the consulship[340] (63), who in 58 insisted on his recall
from exile,[341] and it was his influence with them which
made Caesar so anxious to win him over in 49. He
represented their antipathy alike to socialistic schemes and
to aristocratic exclusiveness, and their old-fashioned simplicity
of life in contrast with the cosmopolitan luxury of the
capital.[342]
By birth, too, he belonged to the equestrian order, the foremost
representatives of which were indeed still the publicani and
negotiatores, but which since the enfranchisement of Italy
included also the substantial burgesses of the Italian towns and
the smaller “squires” of the country districts. With them,
too, Cicero was at one in their dread of democratic excesses
and their social and political jealousy of the
nobiles.[343] Lastly,
as a lawyer and a scholar, he was passionately attached to the
ancient constitution. His political ideal was the natural
outcome of these circumstances. He advocated the maintenance
of the old constitution, but not as it was understood by
the extreme politicians of the right and left. The senate was
to be the supreme directing council,[344] but the senate of Cicero's
dreams was not an oligarchic assemblage of nobles, but a body
freely open to all citizens, and representing the worth of the
community.[345] The magistrates, while deferring to the senate's
authority, were to be at once vigorous and public-spirited;
and the assembly itself which elected the magistrates and passed
the laws was to consist, not of the “mob of the forum,” but
of the true Roman people throughout Italy.[346] For the realization
of this ideal he looked, above all things, to the establishment
of cordial relations between the senate and nobles in Rome
and the great middle class of Italy represented by the equestrian
order, between the capital and the country towns and districts.
This was the concordia ordinum, the consensus Italiae, for which
he laboured.[347]

Cicero's election to the consulship for 63 over the heads
of Caesar's nominees, Antonius and Catiline, was mainly
The conspiracy of Catiline, 63 = 691.
the work of the Italian middle class, already
rendered uneasy both by the rumours which were
rife of revolutionary schemes and of Caesar's boundless
ambition, and by the numerous disquieting signs of disturbance
noticeable in Italy. The new consul vigorously
set himself to discharge the trust placed in him. He defeated the
insidious proposals of Rullus for Caesar's aggrandizement and
assisted in quashing the prosecution of Gaius Rabirius (q.v.).
But with the consular elections in the autumn of 63 a fresh
danger arose from a different quarter. The “conspiracy of
Catiline” (see Catiline) was not the work of the popular
party, and still less was it an unselfish attempt at reform;
Catiline himself was a patrician, who had held high office, and
possessed considerable ability and courage; but he was bankrupt
in character and in purse, and two successive defeats in
the consular elections had rendered him desperate. To retrieve
his broken fortunes by violence was a course which was only
too readily suggested by the history of the last forty years,
and materials for a conflagration abounded on all sides. The
danger to be feared from his intrigues lay in the state of Italy,
which made a revolt against society and the established government
only too likely if once a leader presented himself, and it
was such a revolt that Catiline endeavoured to organize. Bankrupt
nobles like himself, Sullan veterans and the starving
peasants whom they had dispossessed of their holdings, outlaws of
every description, the slave population of Rome, and the wilder
herdsmen-slaves of the Apulian pastures, were all enlisted under
his banner, and attempts were even made to excite disaffection
among the newly conquered people of southern Gaul and the
warlike tribes who still cherished the memory of Sertorius in
Spain. In Etruria, the seat and centre of agrarian distress
and discontent, a rising actually took place headed by a Sullan
centurion, but the spread of the revolt was checked by Cicero's
vigorous measures. Catiline fled from Rome, and died fighting
with desperate courage at the head of his motley force of old
soldiers, peasants and slaves. His accomplices in Rome were
arrested, and, after an unavailing protest from Caesar, the senate
authorized the consuls summarily to put them to death.

The Catilinarian outbreak had been a blow to Caesar, whose
schemes it interrupted, but to Cicero it brought not only popularity
and honour, but, as he believed, the realization of his
political ideal. But Pompey was now on his way
home,[348] and
Return of Pompey from Asia.
again as in 70 the political future seemed to depend
on the attitude which the successful general would
assume; Pompey himself looked simply to the attainment
by the help of one political party or another of
his immediate aims, which at present were the ratification
of his arrangements in Asia and a grant of land for his troops.
It was the impracticable jealousy of his personal rivals in the
senate, aided by the versatility of Caesar, who presented himself
not as his rival but as his ally, which drove Pompey once
Coalition of Pompey, Caesar and Crassus, 60 = 694.
more, in spite of Cicero's efforts, into the camp of
what was still nominally the popular party. In 60,
on Caesar's return from his proprietorship in Spain, the
coalition was formed which is known by the somewhat
misleading title of the First Triumvirate.[349] Pompey
was ostensibly the head of this new alliance, and in
return for the satisfaction of his own demands he undertook
to support Caesar's candidature for the consulship. The
wealth and influence of Crassus were enlisted in the same
cause, and the publicani were secured by a promise of release
from their bargain for collecting the taxes of Asia. Cicero was
under no illusions as to the significance of this coalition. It
scattered to the winds his dreams of a stable and conservative
695.
republic. The year 59 saw the republic powerless
in the hands of three citizens. Caesar as consul
procured the ratification of Pompey's acts in Asia, granted to the
publicani the relief refused by the senate, and carried an agrarian
law of the new type, which provided for the purchase of lands
for allotment at the cost of the treasury and for the assignment
of the rich ager Campanus.[350] But Caesar aimed at more
than the carrying of laws in the teeth of the senate or any party
Caesar's command in Gaul.
victory in the forum. An important military command
was essential to him. An obedient tribune, P. Vatinius,
was found, and by the lex Vatinia he was given for
five years the command of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum, to which
was added by a decree of the senate Transalpine Gaul
also.[351]
This command not only opened to him a great military career,
but enabled him, as the master of the valley of the Po, to keep
an effective watch on the course of affairs in Italy.

Early the next year the attack upon himself which Cicero
had foreseen was made. P. Clodius (q.v.) as tribune brought
Banishment and recall of Cicero, 58-57 = 696-97.
forward a law enacting that any one who had put a
Roman citizen to death without trial by the people
should be interdicted from fire and water. Cicero,
finding himself deserted even by Pompey, left Rome in
a panic, and by a second Clodian law he was declared
to be outlawed.[352] With Caesar away in his province, and
Cicero banished, Clodius was for the time master in Rome.
But, absolute as he was in the streets, and recklessly as he
parodied the policy of the Gracchi by violent attacks on the
senate, his tribunate merely illustrated the anarchy which now
inevitably followed the withdrawal of a strong controlling
hand. A reaction speedily followed. Pompey, bewildered
and alarmed by Clodius's violence, at last bestirred himself.
Cicero's recall was decreed by the senate, and early in August
57 in the comitia centuriata, to which his Italian supporters
flocked in crowds, a law was passed revoking the sentence of
outlawry passed upon him.

Intoxicated by the acclamations which greeted him, and
encouraged by Pompey's support, and by the salutary effects
Renewal of the coalition, 65 = 698.
of Clodius's excesses, Cicero's hopes rose high.[353] With
indefatigable energy he strove to reconstruct a solid
constitutional party, but only to fail once more.
Pompey was irritated by the hostility of a powerful
section in the senate, who thwarted his desires for a fresh
command and even encouraged Clodius in insulting the conqueror
of the East. Caesar became alarmed at the reports
which reached him that the repeal of his agrarian law was
threatened and that the feeling against the coalition was growing
in strength; above all, he was anxious for a renewal of his
five years' command. He acted at once, and in the celebrated
698. 699.
conference at Luca (56) the alliance of the three
self-constituted rulers of Rome was renewed. Cicero succumbed
to the inevitable and withdrew in despair from public life.
Pompey and Crassus became consuls for 55. Caesar's
command was renewed for another five years, and to
each of his two allies important provinces were assigned for a
similar period—Pompey receiving the two Spains and Africa, and
Crassus Syria.[354] The coalition now divided between them the
control of the empire. For the future the question was, how
long the coalition itself would last. Its duration proved to be
Death of Crassus, 53 = 701. 700.
short. In 53 Crassus was defeated and slain by the
Parthians at Carrhae, and in Rome the course of
events slowly forced Pompey into an attitude of
hostility to Caesar. The year 54 brought with it a
renewal of the riotous anarchy which had disgraced
Rome in 58-57. Conscious of its own helplessness, the senate,
with the eager assent of all respectable citizens, dissuaded
Pompey from leaving Italy; and he accordingly left his provinces
to be governed by his legates. But the anarchy and
confusion only grew worse, and even strict constitutionalists
like Cicero talked of the necessity of investing Pompey with some
extraordinary powers for the preservation of order.[355] At last
in 52 he was elected sole consul, and not only 50, but
Pompey sole consul, 52 = 702.
his provincial command was prolonged for five years
more, and fresh troops were assigned him.[356] The rôle
of “saviour of society” thus thrust upon Pompey was
one which flattered his vanity, but it entailed
consequences which it is probable he did not foresee, for it brought
him into close alliance with the senate, and in the senate there
was a powerful party who were resolved to force him into heading
the attack they could not successfully make without him
upon Caesar. It was known that the latter, whose command
705. 706. Proposed recall of Caesar. 703-4. 705.
expired in March 49, but who in the ordinary course
of things would not have been replaced by his successor
until January 48, was anxious to be allowed to stand
for his second consulship in the autumn of 49 without coming
in person to Rome.[357] His opponents in the senate
were equally bent on bringing his command to an end
at the legal time, and so obliging him to disband his
troops and stand for the consulship as a private person,
or, if he kept his command, on preventing his standing for
the consulship. Through 51 and 50 the discussions
in the senate and the negotiations with Caesar
continued, but with no result. On 1st January 49 Caesar
made a last offer of compromise. The senate replied by requiring
him on pain of outlawry to disband his legions. Two
tribunes who supported him were ejected from the senate-house,
and the magistrates with Pompey were authorized to take
measures to protect the republic. Caesar hesitated no longer;
Caesar crosses the Rubicon, 49 = 705. 709.
he crossed the Rubicon and invaded Italy. The
rapidity of his advance astounded and bewildered
his foes. Pompey, followed by the consuls, by the
majority of the senate and a long train of nobles,
abandoned Italy as untenable, and crossed into
Greece.[358] At the end of March Caesar entered Rome as the
master of Italy. Four years later, after the final victory of
Munda (45), he became the undisputed master of the
Roman world.[359]

The task which Caesar had to perform was no easy one.
It came upon him suddenly; for there is no sufficient reason
Dictatorship of Caesar, 48-44 = 706-10.
to believe that Caesar had long premeditated revolution,
or that he had previously aspired to anything
more than such a position as that which Pompey had
already won, a position unrepublican indeed, but
accepted by republicans as inevitable.[360] War was
forced upon him as the alternative to political suicide, but
success in war brought the responsibilities of nearly absolute
power, and Caesar's genius must be held to have shown
itself in the masterly fashion in which he grasped the situation,
rather than in the supposed sagacity with which he is
said to have foreseen and prepared for it. In so far as he failed,
his failure was mainly due to the fact that his tenure of power
was too short for the work which he was required to perform.
From the very first moment when Pompey's ignominious
retreat left him master of Italy, he made it clear that he was
neither a second Sulla nor even the reckless anarchist which
many believed him to be.[361] The Roman and Italian public were
first startled by the masterly rapidity and energy of his movements,
and then agreeably surprised by his lenity and moderation.
No proscriptions or confiscations followed his victories,
and all his acts evinced an unmistakable desire to effect a sober
and reasonable settlement of the pressing questions of the
hour; of this, and of his almost superhuman energy, the long
list of measures he carried out or planned is sufficient proof.
The “children of the proscribed” were at length restored to
their rights,[362] and with them many of the refugees[363] who had found
shelter in Caesar's camp during the two or three years immediately
preceding the war; but the extreme men among his supporters
soon realized that their hopes of novae tabulae and grants of
land were illusory. In allotting lands to his veterans, Caesar
carefully avoided any disturbance of existing owners and
occupiers,[364] and the mode in which he dealt with the economic
crisis produced by the war seems to have satisfied all reasonable
men.[365] It had been a common charge against Caesar in
former days that he paid excessive court to the populace of
Rome, and now that he was master he still dazzled and delighted
them by the splendour of the spectacles he provided, and by
the liberality of his largesses. But he was no indiscriminate
flatterer of the mob. The popular clubs and gilds which had
helped to organize the anarchy of the last few years were dissolved.[366]
A strict inquiry was made into the distribution of the
monthly doles of corn, and the number of recipients was reduced
by one-half;[367] finally, the position of the courts of justice was
raised by the abolition of the popular element among the
judices.[368] Nor did Caesar shrink from the attempt, in which
so many had failed before him, to mitigate the twin evils which
were ruining the prosperity of Italy—the concentration of a
pauper population in the towns, and the denudation and desolation
of the country districts. His strong hand carried out the
scheme so often proposed by the popular leaders since the days
of Gaius Gracchus, the colonization of Carthage and Corinth.
Allotments of land on a large scale were made in Italy; decaying
towns were reinforced by fresh drafts of settlers; on the
large estates and cattle farms the owners were required to
find employment for a certain amount of free labour; and a
slight and temporary stimulus was given to Italian industry
by the reimposition of harbour dues upon foreign
goods.[369]

The reform of the calendar, which is described
elsewhere,[370]
completes a record of administrative reform which entitles
Caesar to the praise of having governed well, whatever may be
thought of the validity of his title to govern at all. But how
did Caesar deal with what was after all the greatest problem
which he was called upon to solve, the establishment of a
satisfactory government for the Empire? One point indeed
was already settled. Some centralization of the executive
authority was indispensable, and this part of his work Caesar
thoroughly performed. From the moment when he seized the
moneys in the treasury on his first entry into Rome[371] down to
the day of his death, he recognized no other authority but his
throughout the Empire. He alone directed the policy of Rome in
foreign affairs; the legions were led, and the provinces governed,
not by independent magistrates, but by his
“legates”;[372]
and the title Imperator which he adopted was intended to
express the absolute and unlimited nature of the imperium he
claimed, as distinct from the limited spheres of authority
possessed by republican magistrates.[373] In so centralizing the
executive authority over the Empire at large, Caesar was but
developing the policy implied in the Gabinian and Manilian
laws, and the precedent he established was closely followed by
his successors. It was otherwise with the more difficult question
of the form under which this new executive authority
should be exercised and the relation it should hold to the
republican constitution. We must be content to remain in
ignorance of the precise shape which Caesar intended ultimately
to give to the new system. The theory that he contemplated
a revival of the old Roman kingship[374] is supported by little
more than the popular gossip of the day, and the form under
which he actually wielded his authority can hardly have been
regarded by so sagacious a statesman as more than a provisional
arrangement. This form was that of the dictatorship; and
in favour of the choice it might have been urged that the
dictatorship was the office naturally marked out by republican
tradition as the one best suited to carry the state safely through
a serious crisis, that the powers it conveyed were wide, that it
was as dictator that Sulla had reorganized the state, and that
a dictatorship had been spoken of as the readiest means of
701-2.
legalizing Pompey's protectorate of the Republic in 53-52.
The choice nevertheless was a bad one. It was
associated with those very Sullan traditions from which Caesar
was most anxious to sever himself; it implied necessarily the
suspension for the time of all constitutional government; and,
lastly, the dictatorship as held by Caesar could not even plead
that it conformed to the old rules and traditions of the office.
The “perpetual dictatorship” granted him after his crowning
709.
victory at Munda (45) was a contradiction in terms
and a repudiation of constitutional government
which excited the bitterest animosity.[375]

A second question, hardly less important, was that of the
position to be assigned to the old constitution. So far as
Caesar himself was concerned, the answer was for the time
sufficiently clear. The old constitution was not formally
abrogated. The senate met and deliberated; the assembly
passed laws and elected magistrates; there were still consuls,
praetors, aediles, quaestors and tribunes; and Caesar himself,
like his successors, professed to hold his authority by the will
of the people. But senate, assembly and magistrates were
all alike subordinated to the paramount authority of the
dictator; and this subordination was, in appearance at least,
more direct and complete under the rule of Caesar than under
that of Augustus. Caesar was by nature as impatient as
Augustus was tolerant of established forms; and, dazzled by
the splendour of his career of victory and by his ubiquitous
energy and versatility, the Roman public, high and low, prostrated
themselves before him and heaped honours upon him
with a reckless profusion which made the existence of any
authority by the side of his own an absurdity.[376] Hence under
Caesar the old constitution was repeatedly disregarded, or
suspended in a way which contrasted unfavourably with the
more respectful attitude assumed by Augustus. For months
together Rome was left without any regular magistrates, and
was governed like a subject town by Caesar's prefects.[377] At
another time a tribune was seen exercising authority outside
the city bounds and invested with the imperium of a praetor.[378]
At the elections, candidates appeared before the people backed
by a written recommendation from the dictator, which was
equivalent to a command.[379] Finally, the senate itself was
transformed out of all likeness to its former self by the raising
of its numbers to 900, and by the admission of old soldiers,
sons of freedmen and even “semi-barbarous Gauls.”[380] But,
though Caesar's high-handed conduct in this respect was not
imitated by his immediate successors, yet the main lines of
their policy were laid down by him. These were—(1) the municipalization
of the old republican constitution, and (2) its
subordination to the paramount authority of the master of
the legions and the provinces. In the first case he only carried
further a change already in progress. Of late years the senate
had been rapidly losing its hold over the Empire at large. Even
the ordinary proconsuls were virtually independent potentates,
ruling their provinces as they chose, and disposing absolutely
of legions which recognized no authority but theirs. The
673.
consuls and praetors of each year had since 81 been
stationed in Rome, and immersed in purely municipal
business; and, lastly, since the enfranchisement of Italy,
the comitia, though still recognized as the ultimate source of
all authority, had become little more than assemblies of the
city populace, and their claim to represent the true Roman
people was indignantly questioned, even by republicans like
Cicero. The concentration in Caesar's hands of all authority
outside Rome completely and finally severed all real connexion
between the old institutions of the Republic of Rome and the
government of the Roman Empire. But the institutions of the
Republic not merely became, what they had originally been,
the local institutions of the city of Rome; they were also
subordinated even within these narrow limits to the paramount
authority of the man who held in his hands the army
and the provinces. Autocratic abroad, at home he was the
chief magistrate of the commonwealth; and this position was
marked, in his case as in that of those who followed him, by a
combination in his person of various powers, and by a general
right of precedence which left no limits to his authority but
such as he chose to impose upon himself. During the greater
706.
part of his reign he was consul as well as dictator. In
48, after his victory at Pharsalia, he was given the
tribunicia potestas for life,[381] and after his second success
at Thapsus the praefectura morum for three years.[382] As chief
magistrate he convenes and presides in the senate, nominates
candidates, conducts elections, carries laws in the assembly
and administers justice in court.[383] Finally, as a reminder
that the chief magistrate of Rome was also the autocratic
ruler of the Empire, he wore even in Rome the laurel wreath
and triumphal dress, and carried the sceptre of the victorious
imperator.[384]

Nor are we without some clue as to the policy which Caesar
had sketched out for himself in the administration of the
Empire, the government of which he had centralized in his
own hands. The much-needed work of rectifying the frontiers[385]
he was forced, by his premature death, to leave to other hands,
but within the frontiers he anticipated Augustus in lightening
the financial burdens of the provincials,[386] and in establishing a
stricter control over the provincial governors,[387] while he went
beyond him in his desire to consolidate the Empire by extending
the Roman franchise[388] and admitting provincials to a share
in the government.[389] He completed the Romanization of Italy
by his enfranchisement of the Transpadane Gauls,[390] and by
establishing throughout the peninsula a uniform system of
municipal government, which under his successors was gradually
extended to the provinces.[391]

On the eve of his departure for the East, to avenge the
Attempted restoration of the republic, 44-43 = 710-11. 710. 723.
death of Crassus and humble the power of Parthia,
Caesar fell a victim to the wounded pride of the
republican nobles; and between the day of his death
(March 15, 44) and that on which Octavian defeated
Antony at Actium (September 2, 31) lies a dreary
period of anarchy and bloodshed.[392]

For a moment, in spite of the menacing attitude of
Caesar's self-constituted representative Marcus Antonius (Mark
Antony), it seemed to one man at least as if the restoration
of republican government was possible. With indefatigable
energy Cicero strove to enlist the senate, the people, and above
all the provincial governors in support of the old constitution.
But, though his eloquence now and again carried all before it
in senate-house and forum, it was powerless to alter the course
711. The second triumvirate, 43-28 = 711-726. 717. 714.
of events. By the beginning of 43 civil war had
recommenced; in the autumn Antony was already
threatening an invasion of Italy at the head of seventeen
legions. Towards the end of October Antony and his ally M.
Aemilius Lepidus coalesced with the young Octavian, who had
been recently elected consul at the age of twenty, in spite of
senatorial opposition; and the coalition was legalized
by the creation of the extraordinary commission for the
“reorganization of the commonwealth” known as the
“Second Triumvirate.”[393] It was appointed for a
period of five years, and was continued in 37 for five
years more.[394] The rule of the triumvirs was inaugurated
in the Sullan fashion by a proscription, foremost
among the victims of which was Cicero himself.[395] In the next
year the defeat of M. Junius Brutus and C. Cassius Longinus
at Philippi, by the combined forces of Octavian and Antony,
destroyed the last hopes of the republican party.[396] In
40 a threatened rupture between the two victors
was avoided by the treaty concluded at Brundusium. Antony
married Octavian's sister Octavia, and took command of the
eastern half of the empire; Octavian appropriated Italy and
the West; while Lepidus was forced to content himself with
Africa.[397] For the next twelve years, while Antony was indulging
in dreams of founding for himself and Cleopatra an empire in
the East, and shocking Roman feeling by his wild excesses and
his affectation of oriental magnificence,[398] Octavian was patiently
consolidating his power. Lepidus his fellow-triumvir was in
718. 719. 722.
36 ejected from Africa and banished to Circeii, while
Sextus Pompeius, who had since his defeat at Munda
maintained a semi-piratical ascendancy in the western Mediterranean,
was decisively defeated in the same year, and his death
in 35 left Octavian sole master of the West. The
inevitable trial of strength between himself and Antony
was not long delayed. In 32 Antony openly challenged
the hostility of Octavian by divorcing Octavia in favour of
the beautiful and daring Egyptian princess, with whom, as the
heiress of the Ptolemies, he aspired to share the empire of the
Eastern world. By a decree of the senate Antony was declared
deposed from his command, and war was declared against
723. 724. 725.
Queen Cleopatra.[399] On the 2nd of September 31
was fought the battle of Actium.[400] Octavian's victory
was complete. Antony and Cleopatra committed
suicide (30), and the Eastern provinces submitted in
29. Octavian returned to Rome to celebrate his
triumph and mark the end of the long-continued anarchy
by closing the temple of Janus;[401] at the end of the next
year he formally laid down the extraordinary powers which
711.
he had held since 43, and a regular government was
established.

III. The Empire.

Period I.: The Princepate, 27 B.C.-A.D. 284—(a) TheConstitution of the Princepate.—The conqueror of Antonius at
Actium, the great-nephew and heir of the dictator Caesar, was
now summoned, by the general consent of a world wearied out
with twenty years of war and anarchy,[402] to the task of establishing
a government which should as far as possible respect the
forms and traditions of the Republic, without sacrificing that
centralization of authority which experience had shown to be
necessary for the integrity and stability of the Empire. It was
a task for which Octavian was admirably fitted. To great
administrative capacity and a quiet tenacity of purpose he
united deliberate caution and unfailing tact; while his bourgeois
birth[403] and genuinely Italian sympathies enabled him to win
the confidence of the Roman community to an extent impossible
for Caesar, with his dazzling pre-eminence of patrician
descent, his daring disregard of forms and his cosmopolitan
tastes.

The new system which was formally inaugurated by Octavian
in 28-27 B.C.[404] assumed the shape of a restoration of the republic
The Augustan system, 28-27 = 726-27.
under the leadership of a princeps.[405] Octavian
voluntarily resigned the extraordinary powers which he had
system, held since 43, and, to quote his own words, “handed
over the republic to the control of the senate and
people of Rome.”[406] The old constitutional machinery
was once more set in motion; the senate, assembly and magistrates
resumed their functions;[407] and Octavian himself was
hailed as the “restorer of the commonwealth and the champion
of freedom.”[408] It was not so easy to determine what relation
he himself, the actual master of the Roman world, should occupy
towards this revived republic. His abdication, in any real
sense of the word, would have simply thrown everything back
into confusion. The interests of peace and order required that
he should retain at least the substantial part of his authority;[409]
and this object was in fact accomplished, and the rule of the
emperors founded, in a manner which has no parallel in history.
Any revival of the kingly title was out of the question, and
Octavian himself expressly refused the dictatorship.[410] Nor was
any new office created or any new official title invented for his
benefit. But by senate and people he was invested according
to the old constitutional forms with certain powers, as many
citizens had been before him, and so took his place by the side
of the lawfully appointed magistrates of the republic;—only,
to mark his pre-eminent dignity, as the first of them all, the
senate decreed that he should take as an additional cognomen
that of “Augustus,”[411] while in common parlance he was henceforth
styled princeps, a simple title of courtesy, familiar to republican
usage, and conveying no other idea than that of a
recognized primacy and precedence over his
fellow-citizens.[412]
The ideal sketched by Cicero in his De Republica, of a constitutional
president of a free republic, was apparently realized;
but it was only in appearance. For in fact the special prerogatives
conferred upon Octavian gave him back in substance
the autocratic authority he had resigned, and as between the
restored republic and its new princeps the balance of power was
overwhelmingly on the side of the latter.

Octavian had held the imperium since 43; in 33, it
711, 721. The settlement of 27 = 727. 727.
is true, the powers of the triumvirate had legally
expired, but he had continued to wield his authority,
as he himself puts it,[413] “by universal consent.” In 27
he received a formal grant of the imperium from the senate and people for the term of ten years, and his provincia
was defined as including all the provinces in which military
authority was required and legions were stationed.[414] He was
declared commander-in-chief of the Roman army, and granted
the exclusive right of levying troops, of making war and peace,
and of concluding treaties.[415] As consul, moreover, he not only
continued to be the chief magistrate of the state at home, but
took precedence, in virtue of his majus imperium, over the
governors of the “unarmed provinces,” which were still nominally
under the control of the senate. Thus the so-called “restoration
of the republic” was in essence the recognition by law
of the personal supremacy of Octavian, or Augustus, as he
must henceforth be called.

In 23 an important change was made in the formal
basis of
Augustus's authority. In that year he laid down the consulship
The re-settlement of 23 = 731. 723.
which he had held each year since 31, and could
therefore only exert his imperium pro consule, like
the ordinary governor of a province. He lost his
authority as chief magistrate in Rome and his
precedence over the governors of senatorial
provinces. To remedy these defects a series of extraordinary
offices were pressed upon his acceptance; but he refused
them all,[416] and caused a number of enactments to be
passed which determined the character of the principate for
the next three centuries.[417] Firstly, he was exempted from the
disability attaching to the tenure of the imperium by one who
was not an actual magistrate, and permitted to retain and
exercise it in Rome. Secondly, his imperium was declared
to be equal with that of the consuls, and therefore superior to
that of all other holders of that power. Thirdly, he was granted
equal rights with the consuls of convening the senate and
introducing business, of nominating candidates at
elections,[418]
and of issuing edicts.[419] Lastly, he was placed on a level with the
consuls in outward rank. Twelve lictors were assigned to him
and an official seat between those of the consuls themselves
(Dio liv. 10).

Thus the proconsular authority[420] was for the first time
admitted within the walls of Rome; but Augustus was too
Tribunicia potestas.
cautious a statesman to proclaim openly the fact that
the power which he wielded in the city was the same
as that exercised in camps and provinces by a Roman
military commander. Hence he sought for a title which should
disguise the nature of his authority, and found it in the
“tribunician power,” which had been conferred upon him for life
718. 731. 731.
in 36, and was well suited, from its urban and
democratic traditions, to serve in Rome as “a term to
express his supreme position.”[421] From 23 onwards the
tribunicia potestas appears after his name in official inscriptions,
together with the number indicating the period during which it
had been held (also reckoned from 23); it was in virtue
of this power that Augustus introduced the social reforms
which the times demanded;[422] and, though far inferior to the
imperium in actual importance, it ranked with or even above it as
a distinctive prerogative of the emperor or his chosen
colleague.[423]

The imperium and the tribunicia potestas were the two
pillars upon which the authority of Augustus rested, and the
731. 749, 752. 742. 732.
other offices and privileges conferred upon him were
of secondary importance. After 23 he never held the
consulship save in 5 and 2 B.C., when he became the
colleague of his grandsons on their introduction to public life.
He permitted the triumvir Lepidus to retain the chief pontificate
until his death, when Augustus naturally became pontifexmaximus (12 B.C.).[424] He proceeded with the like
caution in reorganizing the chief departments of the
public service in Rome and Italy. The cura annonae, i.e. the
supervision of the corn supply of Rome, was entrusted to him in
22 B.C.,[425] and this important branch of administration
thus came under his personal control; but the other
boards (curae), created during his reign to take charge of the
roads, the water-supply, the regulation of the Tiber and the
public buildings, were composed of senators of high rank, and
regarded in theory as deriving their authority from the
senate.[426]

Such was the ingenious compromise by which room was
found for the master of the legions within the narrow limits of
the old Roman constitution. Augustus could say with truth that
he had accepted no office which was “contrary to the usage
of our ancestors,” and that it was only in dignity that he took
precedence of his colleagues. Nevertheless, as every thinking
man must have realized, the compromise was unreal, and its
significance was ambiguous. It was an arrangement avowedly
of an exceptional and temporary character, yet no one could
suppose that it would in effect be otherwise than permanent.
The powers voted to Augustus were (like those conferred upon
687. 727.
Pompey in 67 B.C.) voted only to him, and (save the
tribunicia potestas) voted only for a limited time; in 27 he
received the imperium for ten years, and it was afterwards
renewed for successive periods of five, five, ten and ten
years.[427]
In this way the powers of the principate were made coextensive
in time with the life of Augustus, but there was absolutely no
provision for hereditary or any other form of succession, and
various expedients were devised in order to indicate the destined
successor of the princeps and to bridge the gap created by his
death. Ultimately Augustus associated his stepson Tiberius
with himself as co-regent. The imperium and the tribuniciapotestas were conferred upon him, and he was thus marked
out as the person upon whom the remaining powers of the
principate would naturally be bestowed after the death of his
stepfather. But succeeding emperors did not always indicate
their successors so clearly, and, in direct contrast to the maxim
that “the king never dies,” it has been well said that the Roman
principate died with the death of the princeps.[428]

In theory, at least, the Roman world was governed according
to the “maxims of Augustus” (Suet. Ner. 10), down to the
Changes in the constitution of the principate.
time of Diocletian. Even in the 3rd century there is
still in name at least, a republic, of which the emperor
is in strictness only the chief magistrate, deriving
his authority from the senate and people, and with
prerogatives limited and defined by law. The case
is quite different when we turn from theory to practice. The
division of authority between the republic and its chief magistrate
became increasingly unequal. Over the provinces the
princeps from the first ruled autocratically; and this autocracy
reacted upon his position in Rome, so that it became every
year more difficult for a ruler so absolute abroad to maintain
even the fiction of republican government at home. The
republican institutions, with the partial exception of the senate,
lose all semblance of authority outside Rome, and even as the
municipal institutions of the chief city of the empire they retain
but little actual power. The real government even of Rome
passes gradually into the hands of imperial prefects and commissioners,
and the old magistracies become merely decorations
which the emperor bestows at his pleasure. At the same time
the rule of the princeps assumes an increasingly personal character,
and the whole work of government is silently concentrated
in his hands and in those of his own subordinates. Closely
connected with this change is the different aspect presented by
the history of the empire in Rome and Italy on the one hand
and in the provinces on the other. Rome and Italy share in
the decline of the republic. Political independence and activity
die out; their old pre-eminence and exclusive privileges gradually
disappear; and at the same time the weight of the overwhelming
power of the princeps, and the abuses of their power by
individual principes, press most heavily upon them. On the
other hand, in the provinces and on the frontiers, where the
imperial system was most needed, and where from the first it
had full play, it is seen at its best as developing or protecting
an orderly civilization and maintaining the peace of the
world.

The decay of the republican institutions had commenced
before the revolutionary crisis of 49. It was accelerated by
Decay of republican institutions. 705, 726.
the virtual suspension of regular government between
49 and 28; and not even the diplomatic deference
towards ancient forms which Augustus displayed
availed to conceal the unreality of his work of
restoration. The comitia received back from him
“their ancient rights” (Suet. Aug. 40), and during his
The comitia.
lifetime they continued to pass laws and to elect
magistrates. But after the end of the reign of Tiberius
we have only two instances of legislation by the
assembly in the ordinary way,[429] and the law-making of the empire
is performed either by decrees of the senate or by imperial edicts
and constitutions. Their prerogative of electing magistrates
was, even under Augustus, robbed of most of its importance
by the control which the princeps exercised over their choice by
means of his rights of nomination and commendation, which
effectually secured the election of his own nominees.[430] By
Tiberius this restricted prerogative was still further curtailed.
The candidates for all magistracies except the consulship were
thenceforward nominated and voted for in the senate-house
and by the senators,[431] and only the formal return of the result
(renuntiatio) took place in the assembly (Dio lviii. 20). And,
though the election of consuls was never thus transferred to
the senate, the process of voting seems to have been silently
abandoned. In the time of the younger Pliny we hear only
of the nomination of the candidates and of their formal renuntiatio
in the Campus Martius.[432] The princeps himself as
long as the Principate lasted, continued to receive the tribuniciapotestas by a vote of the assembly, and was thus held to derive
his authority from the people.[433]

Adapted from maps in Sieglin's Atlas, by permission of Justus Perthes

Emery Walker sc.

Adapted from maps in Sieglin's Atlas, by permission of Justus Perthes, Gotha.

Emery Walker sc.

This almost complete effacement of the comitia was largely
due to the fact that they had ceased to represent anything but
The magistracies.
the populace of Rome, and the comparatively greater
vitality shown by the old magistracies is mainly
attributable to the value they continued to possess
in the eyes of the Roman upper class. But, though
they were eagerly sought (Plin. Epp. ii. 9, vi. 6), and conferred
on their holders considerable social distinction, the magistrates
ceased, except in name, to be the popularly chosen executive
officers of the Roman state. In the administration of the
empire at large they had no share, if we except the subordinate
duties still assigned to the quaestor in a province. In Rome,
to which their sphere of work was limited, they were overshadowed
by the dominant authority of the princeps, while their
range of duties was increasingly circumscribed by the gradual
transference of administrative authority, even within the city,
to the emperor and his subordinate officials. And their dependence
on the princeps was confirmed by the control he
exercised over their appointment. For all candidates the
approval, if not the commendation, of the princeps became
the indispensable condition of success, and the princeps on
his side treated these ancient offices as pieces of preferment with
which to reward his adherents or gratify the ambition of Roman
nobles. The dignity of the office, too, was impaired by the
practice, begun by Caesar and continued by Augustus and his
Consulship.
successors, of granting the insignia to men who had not
held the actual magistracy itself.[434] The consulship was
still the highest post open to the private citizen, and consular
rank a necessary qualification for high office in the provinces;[435]
but the actual consuls have scarcely any other duties than those
of presiding in the senate and occasionally executing its decrees,
while their term of office dwindles from a year to six and finally
to two months.[436] In the age of Tacitus and the younger Pliny,
the contrast is striking between the high estimate set on the
dignity of the office and the frankness with which its limited
Praetorship. Aedileship. Tribunate. Quaestorship.
powers and its dependence on the emperor are
acknowledged.[437] The praetors continued to exercise
their old jurisdiction with little formal change down
at least to the latter half of the second century, but only as
subordinate to the higher judicial authority of the
emperor.[438] The aediles retained only such petty police
duties as did not pass to one or another of the imperial
prefects and commissioners. The tribunate fared
still worse, for, by the side of the tribunicia potestas
wielded by the princeps, it sank into
insignificance.[439]
The quaestorship suffered less change than any other of the old
offices. It kept its place as the first step on the ladder
of promotion, and there was still a quaestor attached to
each governor of a senatorial province, to the consuls
in Rome, and to the princeps himself.[440]

The senate alone among republican institutions retained
some importance and influence, and it thus came to be regarded
The Senate.
as sharing the government of the Empire with the
princeps himself. It nominally controlled the administration
of Italy and of the “public provinces,” whose governors
it appointed. It is to the senate, in theory, that the supreme
power reverts in the absence of a princeps. It is by decree of
the senate that the new princeps immediately receives his
powers and privileges,[441] though he is still supposed to derive
them ultimately from the people. After the cessation of all
legislation by the comitia, the only law-making authority, other
than that of the princeps by his edicts, was that of the senate by
its decrees.[442] Its judicial authority was co-ordinate with that
of the emperor, and at the close of the 1st century we find
the senators claiming, as the emperor's “peers,” to be exempt
from his jurisdiction.[443] But in spite of the outward dignity
of its position, and of the deference with which it was frequently
treated, the senate became gradually almost as powerless in
reality as the comitia and the magistracies. The senators
continued indeed to be taken as a rule from the ranks of the
wealthy, and a high property qualification was established
by Augustus as a condition of membership; but this merely
enabled the emperors to secure their own ascendancy by subsidizing
those whose property fell short of the required standard,
and who thus became simply the paid creatures of their imperial
patrons.[444] Admission to the senate was possible only by favour
of the emperor, both as controlling the elections to the magistracies, which still gave entrance to the curia, and as invested
with the power of directly creating senators by adlectio, a power
which from the time of Vespasian onwards was freely
used.[445]
As the result, the composition of the senate rapidly altered.
Under Augustus and Tiberius it still contained many representatives
of the old republican families, whose prestige and
ancestral traditions were some guarantee for their independence.
But this element soon disappeared. The ranks of the old
nobility were thinned by natural decay and by the jealous fears
of the last three Claudian emperors.
Vespasian[446] flooded the
senate with new men from the municipal towns of Italy and
the Latinized provinces of the West. Trajan and Hadrian, both
provincials themselves, carried on the same policy, and by
the close of the 2nd century even the Greek provinces of the
East had their representatives in the senate. Some, no doubt,
of these provincials, who constituted the great majority of the
senate in the 3rd century, were men of wealth and mark, but
many more were of low birth, on some rested the stain of a
servile descent, and all owed alike their present position and
their chances of further promotion to the emperor.[447] The procedure
of the senate was as completely at the mercy of the
princeps as its composition. He was himself a senator and
the first of senators;[448] he possessed the magisterial prerogatives
of convening the senate, of laying business before it, and of
carrying senatus consulta;[449] above all, his tribunician power
enabled him to interfere at any stage, and to modify or reverse
its decisions. The share of the senate in the government was
in fact determined by the amount of administrative activity
which each princeps saw fit to allow it to exercise, and this
share became steadily smaller. The jurisdiction assigned it
by Augustus and Tiberius was in the 3rd century limited to
the hearing of such cases as the emperor thought fit to send
for trial, and these became steadily fewer in number. Its
control of the state treasury, as distinct from the imperial
fiscus, was in fact little more than nominal, and became increasingly
unimportant as the great bulk of the revenue passed
into the hands of the emperor. Even in Rome and Italy
its control of the administration was gradually transferred to
the prefect of the city, and after the reign of Hadrian to imperial
officers (juridici) charged with the civil
administration.[450] The
part still played by its decrees in the modification of Roman
law has been dealt with elsewhere (see Senate), but it is clear
that these decrees did little else than register the expressed
wishes of the emperor and his personal advisers.

The process by which all authority became centralized in the
hands of the princeps and in practice exercised by an organized
Centralization of authority: the imperial service.
bureaucracy[451] was of necessity gradual; but it
had its beginnings under Augustus, who formed the
equestrian order (admission to which was henceforth
granted only by him) into an imperial service, partly
civil and partly military, whose members, being immediately
dependent on the emperor, could be employed
on tasks which it would have been impossible to assign
to senators (see Equites). From this order were drawn
the armies of “procurators”—the term was derived from
the practice of the great business houses of Rome—who administered
the imperial revenues and properties in all parts of
the empire. Merit was rewarded by independent governorships
such as those of Raetia and Noricum, or the command
of the naval squadrons at Misenum and Ravenna;
and the prizes of the knight's career were the prefectures
of the praetorian guard, the corn-supply and the city police,
and the governorship of Egypt. The household offices and
imperial secretary ships were held by freedmen, almost always
of Greek origin, whose influence became all-powerful under such
emperors as Claudius.[452] The financial secretary (a rationibus)
and those who dealt with the emperor's correspondence (abepistulis) and with petitions (a libellis) were the most important
of these.

This increase of power was accompanied by a corresponding
elevation of the princeps himself above the level of all other
Outward splendour.
citizens. The comparatively modest household and
simple life of Augustus were replaced by a more than
regal splendour, and under Nero we find all the outward
accessories of monarchy present, the palace, the palace
guards, the crowds of courtiers, and a court ceremonial. In
direct opposition to the republican theory of the principate,
members of the family of the princeps share the dignities of his
position. The males bear the cognomen of Caesar, and are invested,
as youths, with high office; their names and even those
of the females are included in the yearly prayers for the safety of
the princeps;[453] their birthdays are kept as festivals; the praetorian
guards take the oath to them as well as to the princeps himself.
The logical conclusion was reached in the practice of
Caesar-worship,[454]
which was in origin the natural expression of a widespread
sentiment of homage, which varied in form in different
parts of the empire and in different classes of society, but was
turned to account by the statecraft of Augustus to develop
something like an imperial patriotism. The official worship of
the deified Caesar, starting from that of the “divine Julius,”
gave a certain sanctity and continuity to the regular succession
of the emperors, but it was of less importance politically than
the worship of “Rome and Augustus,” first instituted in Asia
Minor in 29 B.C., and gradually diffused throughout the provinces,
as a symbol of imperial unity. It must be observed that living
emperors were not officially worshipped by Roman citizens;
yet we find that even in Italy an unauthorized worship of
Augustus sprang up during his lifetime in the country
towns.[455]

On the accession of Augustus, there could be little doubt as
to the nature of the work that was necessary, if peace and prosperity
were to be secured for the Roman world. He was called
upon to justify his position by rectifying the frontiers and
strengthening their defences, by reforming the system of provincial
government, and by reorganizing the finance; and his
success in dealing with these three difficult problems is sufficiently
proved by the prosperous condition of the empire for a century
and a half after his death. To secure peace it was necessary to
The frontiers.
establish on all sides of the empire really defensible
frontiers; and this became possible now that for the
first time the direction of the foreign policy of the state
and of its military forces was concentrated in the hands of a
single magistrate. To the south and west the generals of the republic,
and Caesar himself, had extended the authority of Rome
to the natural boundaries formed by the African deserts and
the Atlantic Ocean, and in these two directions Augustus's task
was in the main confined to the organization of a settled Roman
government within these limits. In Africa the client state of
Egypt was ruled by Augustus as the successor of the Ptolemies,
and administered by his deputies (praefecti), and the kingdom of
Numidia (25 B.C.) was incorporated with the old province of
Africa. In Spain the hill-tribes of the north-west were finnally
subdued and a third province, Lusitania, established.[456] In Gaul
Augustus (27 B.C.) established in addition to the “old province”
the three new ones of Aquitania, Lugdunensis and Belgica,[457]
which included the territories conquered by Julius Caesar.
The North.
Towards the north the republic had left the civilized
countries bordering on the Mediterranean with only a
very imperfect defence against the threatening mass
of barbarian tribes beyond them. The result[458] of Augustus's
policy was to establish a protecting line of provinces running from
the Euxine to the North Sea, and covering the peaceful districts
to the south,—Moesia (A.D. 6), Pannonia (A.D. 9), Noricum
(15 B.C.), Raetia (15 B.C.) and Gallia Belgica. Roman rule was
thus carried up to the natural frontier lines of the Rhine and
the Danube. It was originally intended to make the Elbe the
frontier of the empire; but after the defeat of P. Quintilius
Varus (A.D. 9) the forward policy was abandoned. Tiberius
recalled Germanicus as soon as Varus had been avenged; and
after the peace with Maroboduus, the chief of the Marcomanni
on the upper Danube, in the next year (A.D. 17), the defensive
policy recommended by Augustus was adopted along the whole
of the northern frontier. The line of the great rivers was held
by an imposing mass of troops. Along the Rhine lay the armies
of Upper and Lower Germany, consisting of four legions each;
eight more guarded the Danube and the frontiers of Pannonia
and Moesia. At frequent intervals along the frontier were the
military colonies, the permanent camps and the smaller intervening
castella. Flotillas of galleys cruised up and down the
rivers, and Roman roads opened communication both along the
frontiers and with the seat of government in Italy.

In the East, Rome was confronted with a well-organized and
powerful state whose claims to empire were second only to her
The East.
own. The victory of Carrhae (53 B.C.) had encouraged
among the Parthians the idea of an invasion of Syria and
Asia Minor, while it had awakened in Rome a genuine
fear of the formidable power which had so suddenly arisen in
the East. Caesar was at the moment of his death preparing to
avenge the death of Crassus by an invasion of Parthia, and
Antony's schemes of founding an Eastern empire which should
rival that of Alexander included the conquest of the kingdom
beyond the Euphrates. Augustus, however, adhered to the
policy which he recommended to his successors of “keeping
the empire within its bounds”; and the Parthians, weakened
by internal feuds and dynastic quarrels, were in no mood for
vigorous action. Roman pride was satisfied by the restoration
of the standards taken at Carrhae. Four legions guarded the
line of the Euphrates, and, beyond the frontiers of Pontus and
Cappadocia, Armenia was established as a “friendly and independent
ally.”[459]

Next in importance to the rectification and defence of the
frontiers was the reformation of the administration, and the
Administrative reforms in the provinces.
restoration of prosperity to the distracted and exhausted
provinces. The most serious defect of the republican
system had been the absence of any effective control
over the Roman officials outside Italy. This was
now supplied by the general proconsular authority
vested in the emperor. The provinces were for the
first time treated as departments of a single state, while
their governors, from being independent and virtually irresponsible
rulers, became the subordinate officials of a higher
authority.[460] Over the legati of the imperial provinces the
control of the emperor was as complete as that of the republican
proconsul over his staff in his own province. They were appointed
by him, held office at his good pleasure, and were
directly responsible to him for their conduct. The proconsuls
of the senatorial provinces were in law magistrates equally with
the princeps, though inferior to him in rank; it was to the
senate that they were as of old responsible; they were still
selected by lot from among the senators of consular and
praetorian rank. But the distinction did not seriously interfere
with the paramount authority of the emperor. The provinces
left nominally to the senate were the more peaceful and settled
districts in the heart of the empire, where only the routine work
of civil administration was needed, and where the local municipal
governments were as yet comparatively vigorous. The senatorial
proconsuls themselves were indirectly nominated by the
emperor through his control of the praetorship and consulship.
They wielded no military and only a strictly subordinate
financial authority, and, though Augustus and Tiberius, at any
rate, encouraged the fiction of the responsibility of the senatorial
governors to the senate, it was in reality to the emperor that
they looked for direction and advice, and to him that they were
held accountable. Moreover, in the case of all governors
this accountability became under the empire a reality. Prosecutions
for extortion (de pecuniis repetundis), which were now
transferred to the hearing of the senate, are tolerably frequent
during the first century of the empire; but a more effective
check on maladministration lay in the appeal to Caesar from the
decisions of any governor, which was open to every provincial,
and in the right of petition. Finally, the authority both of the
legate and the proconsul was weakened by the presence of the
imperial procurator, to whom was entrusted the administration
of the fiscal revenues; while both legate and proconsul were
deprived of that right of requisitioning supplies which, in spite
of a long series of restrictive laws, had been the most powerful
instrument of oppression in the hands of republican governors.
The financial reforms of Augustus[461] are marked by
Financial reforms.
the same desire to establish an equitable, orderly
and economical system, and by the same centralization
of authority in the emperor's hands. The institution of an
imperial census, or valuation of all land throughout the empire,
and the assessment upon this basis of a uniform land tax, in
place of the heterogeneous and irregular payments made under
the republic, were the work of Augustus, though the system
was developed and perfected by the emperors of the 2nd century
and by Diocletian. The land tax itself was directly collected,
either by imperial officials or by local authorities responsible to
them, and the old wasteful plan of selling the privilege of
collection to publicani was henceforward applied only to such
indirect taxes as the customs duties. The rate of the land tax
was fixed by the emperor, and with him rested the power of
remission even in senatorial provinces.[462] The effect of these
reforms is clearly visible in the improved financial condition of
the empire. Under the republic the treasury had been nearly
always in difficulties, and the provinces exhausted and impoverished.
Under the emperors, at least throughout the 1st
century, in spite of a largely increased expenditure on the
army, on public works, on shows and largesses, and on the
machinery of government itself, the better emperors, such as
Liberal policy towards the provinces.
Tiberius and Vespasian, were able to accumulate large sums,
while the provinces show but few signs of distress. Moreover,
while the republic had almost entirely neglected to
develop the internal resources of the provinces,
Augustus set the example of a liberal expenditure
on public works, in the construction of harbours,
roads and bridges, the reclamation of waste lands,
and the erection of public buildings.[463] The crippling restrictions
which the republic had placed on freedom of intercourse
and trade, even between the separate districts of a single
province, disappeared under the empire. In the eyes of the
Italy and the provinces under the empire.
republican statesmen the provinces were merely the
estates of the Roman people, but from the reign of
Augustus dates the gradual disappearance of the old
pre-eminence of Rome and Italy. It was from the
provinces that the legions were increasingly recruited;
provincials rose to high rank as soldiers, statesmen and men
of letters;[464] and the methods of administration, formerly
distinctive of the provinces, were adopted even in Rome and
Italy. From Augustus himself, jealous as he was of the traditions
and privileges of the ruling Roman people, date the rule
of an imperial prefect[465] in the city of Rome, the division of
Italy into regiones in the provincial fashion, and the permanent
quartering there of armed troops.[466]

Augustus founded a dynasty which occupied the throne for
more than half a century after his death. The first and by far
The Julio-Claudian line.
the ablest of its members was Tiberius (A.D. 14-37).
He was undoubtedly a capable and vigorous ruler,
who enforced justice in the government of the
provinces, maintained the integrity of the frontiers and husbanded
the finances of the empire, but he became intensely unpopular
in Roman society, and was painted as a cruel and odious tyrant.
His successor, Gaius (A.D. 37-41), generally known as Caligula,
was the slave of his wild caprices and uncontrolled passions,
which issued in manifest insanity. He was followed by his
uncle, Claudius (A.D. 41-54), whose personal uncouthness made
him an object of derision to his contemporaries, but who was
by no means devoid of statesmanlike faculties. His reign left
an abiding mark on the history of the empire, for he carried
forward its development on the lines intended by Augustus.
Client-states were absorbed, southern Britain was conquered,
the Romanization of the West received a powerful impulse,
public works were executed in Rome and Italy, and the organization
of the imperial bureaucracy made rapid strides. Nero
(A.D. 54-68), the last of the Julio-Claudian line, has been handed
down to posterity as the incarnation of monstrous vice and
fantastic luxury. But his wild excesses scarcely affected the
prosperity of the empire at large; the provinces were well
governed, and the war with Parthia led to a compromise in the
matter of Armenia which secured peace for half a
century.[467]The fall of Nero and the extinction of the “progeny of
the Caesars” was followed by a war of succession which
revealed the military basis of the Principate and the
weakness of the tie connecting the emperor with Rome.
Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian represented in turn
the legions of Spain, the household troops, the army of
the Rhine, and a coalition of the armies of the Danube
and the Euphrates; and all except Otho were already
de facto emperors when they entered Rome. The final
survivor in the struggle, Vespasian (A.D. 69-79), was a man of
comparatively humble origin, and as the Principate ceased to
possess the prestige of high descent it became imperatively
The Flavian and Antonine emperors.
necessary to remove, as far as possible, the anomalies
of the office and to give it a legitimate and permanent
form. Thus we find an elaborate and formal system
of titles substituted for the personal names of the
Julio-Claudian emperors, an increasing tendency to
insist on the inherent prerogatives of the Principate (such as
the censorial power), and an attempt to invest Caesarism with
an hereditary character, either by natural descent or by adoption,
while the worship of the Divi, or deified Caesars, was made
the symbol of its continuity and legitimacy. The dynasty of
Vespasian and his sons (Titus, A.D. 79-81, Domitian, A.D. 81-96)
became extinct on the murder of the last named, whose highhanded
treatment of the senate earned him the name of a tyrant;
his successor, Nerva (A.D. 96-98), opened the series of “adoptive”
emperors (Trajan, A.D. 98-117, Hadrian, 117-38,
Antoninus Pius, 138-61, Marcus Aurelius, 161-80) under
whose rule the empire enjoyed a period of internal tranquillity
and good government. Its boundaries were extended by the
subjugation of northern Britain (by Agricola, A.D. 78-84; see
Britain, § Roman), by the annexation of the districts included
in the angle of the Rhine and Danube under the Flavian
emperors, and by the conquest of Dacia (the modern Transylvania)
under Trajan (completed in A.D. 106). Trajan also
annexed Arabia Petraea and in his closing years invaded
Parthia and formed provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia
and Assyria; but these conquests were surrendered by his
successor, Hadrian, who set himself to the task of consolidating
the empire and perfecting its defences. To him is
due the system of permanent limites or frontier fortifications,
such as the wall which protected northern Britain and the
palisade which replaced the chain of forts established by
the Flavian emperors from the Rhine to the Danube.[468] The
construction of these defences showed that the limit of
expansion had been reached, and under M. Aurelius the
tide began to turn. A great part of his reign was occupied
with wars against the Marcomanni, Quadi, Sarmatians, &c.,
whose irruptions seriously threatened the security of Italy.
Henceforth Rome never ceased to be on the defensive.
Condition of the provinces. Spread of the municipal systems.
Within the frontiers the levelling and unifying
process commenced by Augustus had steadily
proceeded. A tolerably uniform provincial system
covered the whole area of the empire. The client
states had one by one been reconstituted as provinces, and even
the government of Italy had been in many respects assimilated
to the provincial type. The municipal system had
spread widely; the period from Vespasian to Aurelius
witnessed the elevation to municipal rank of an
immense number of communities, not only in the old
provinces of the West, in Africa, Spain and Gaul, but
in the newer provinces of the North, and along the line of the
northern frontier; and everywhere under the influence of the
central imperial authority there was an increasing uniformity
in the form of the local constitutions, framed and granted as
Extension of the Roman franchise.
they all were by imperial edict.[469] Throughout the
empire again the extension of the Roman franchise
was preparing the way for the final act by which
Caracalla assimilated the legal status of all free-born
inhabitants of the empire,[470] and in the west and north
this was preceded and accompanied by the complete Romanizing
of the people in language and civilization. Yet, in spite
of the internal tranquillity and the good government which have
made the age of the Antonines famous, we can detect signs of
weakness. It was in this period that the centralization of
authority in the hands of the princeps was completed; the “dual
control” established by Augustus, which had been unreal
enough in the 1st century, was now, though not formally
abolished, systematically ignored in practice. The senate
ceased to be an instrument of government, and became an
imperial peerage, largely composed of men not qualified by
election to the quaestorship but directly ennobled by the
emperor.[471] The restricted sphere of administration left by
Augustus to the old magistracies was still further narrowed;
their jurisdiction, for example, tended to pass into the hands
of the Greek officers appointed by Caesar—the prefect of the
city and the prefect of the guards. The complete organization
of Caesar's own administrative service, and its recognition as a
state bureaucracy, was chiefly the work of Hadrian, who took
the secretaryships out of the hands of freedmen and entrusted
them to procurators of equestrian rank.[472] All these changes,
inevitable, and in some degree beneficial, as they were, brought
with them the attendant evils of excessive centralization.
Though these were hardly felt while the central authority was
wielded by vigorous rulers, yet even under Trajan, Hadrian and
the Antonines we notice a failure of strength in the empire as a
whole, and a corresponding increase of pressure on the imperial
government itself. The reforms of Augustus had given free
play to powers still fresh and vigorous. The ceaseless labours
of Hadrian were directed mainly to the careful husbanding of
such strength as still remained, or to attempts at reviving it by
the sheer force of imperial authority. Among the symptoms of
incipient decline were the growing depopulation, especially of the
central districts of the empire, the constant financial difficulties,
the deterioration in character of the local governments in the
provincial communities,[473] and the increasing reluctance exhibited
by all classes to undertake the now onerous burden of
municipal office.

It is to such facts as these that we must look in passing a
final judgment on the imperial government, which is admittedly
seen in its best and most perfect form in the Antonine period.
In our review of the conditions which brought about the fall
of the Roman Republic, we saw that the collapse of the city state
made Caesarism inevitable, since the extension of federal
and representative institutions to a world-empire lay beyond
the horizon of ancient thought. The benefits which Caesarism
conferred upon mankind are plain. In the first place, the
Roman world, which had hitherto not been governed in the
true sense of the word, but exploited in the interests of a
dominant clique, now received an orderly and efficient government,
under which the frightful ravages of misrule and civil
strife were repaired. The financial resources of the empire
were husbanded by skilled and, above all, trained administrators,
to whom the imperial service offered a carrière ouverte auxtalents; many of these were Greeks, or half-Greek Orientals,
whose business capacity formed an invaluable asset hitherto
neglected. Augustus caused an official survey of the empire
to be made, and a scientific census of its resources was gradually
carried out and from time to time revised; thus the balance
of revenue and expenditure could be accurately estimated and
adjusted, and financial stability was established. The system
of tax-farming was gradually abolished and direct collection
substituted; commerce was freed from vexatious restrictions
and large customs-districts were formed, on whose borders
duties were levied for revenue only. The government took
even more direct measures for the encouragement of industry
and especially of agriculture. The most remarkable of these
were the “alimentary” institutions, originally due to Nerva
and developed by succeeding emperors. Capital was advanced
at moderate rates of interest to Italian landowners on the
security of their estates, and the profits of this system of land banks
were devoted to the maintenance and education of poor
children. The foundation of colonies for time-expired soldiers
who received grants of land on their discharge, contributed
something to the formation of a well-to-do agricultural class;
and although the system was not successful in lower Italy,
where economic decline could not be arrested, there can be
no doubt that central and northern Italy, where the vine and
olive were largely cultivated, and manufacturing industries
sprang up, enjoyed a considerable measure of prosperity. The
extension of the Roman municipal system to the provinces,
and the watchful care exercised by the imperial government
over the communities, together with the profuse liberality of
the emperors, which was imitated by the wealthier citizens of
the towns, led to the creation of a flourishing municipal life still
evidenced by the remains which in districts such as Asia Minor
or Tunis stand in significant contrast with the desolation
brought about by centuries of barbaric rule.
Mommsen[474]
has, indeed, expressed the opinion that “if an angel of the Lord
were to strike the balance whether the domain ruled by Severus
Antoninus were governed with the greater intelligence and the
greater humanity at that time or in the present day, whether
civilization and national prosperity generally had since that
time advanced or retrograded, it is very doubtful whether the
decision would prove in favour of the present.”

But there is another side to the picture. The empire brought
into being a new society and a new nationality, due to the
fusion of Roman ideas with Hellenic culture, beside which
other elements, saving only, as we shall see, those contributed
by the Oriental religions, were insignificant. This new nationality
grew in definition through the gradual disappearance of
distinctions of language and manners, the assimilating influence
of commercial and social intercourse, and the extinction of
national jealousies and aspirations. But the cosmopolitan
society thus formed was compacted of so many disparate
elements that a common patriotism was hard to foster, and
doubly hard when the autocratic system of government
prevented men from aspiring to that true political distinction
which is attainable only in a self-governing community. It
is true that there was much good work to be done, and
that much good work was done, in the service of the
emperors; true, also, that the carrière ouverte aux talents was
in large measure realized. Distinctions of race were slowly
but steadily effaced by the grant of citizen rights to provincials
and by the manumission of slaves; and the career open to
the Romanized provincial or the liberated slave might culminate
in the highest distinctions which the emperor could bestow.
In the hierarchy of social orders—senate, equites and plebs—ascent
was easy and regular from the lower grade to the higher;
and the more enlightened of the emperors—especially Hadrian—made
a genuine endeavour to give a due share in the work of
government to the various subject races. But nothing could
compensate for the lack of self-determination, and although
during the first century and a half of imperial rule a flourishing
local patriotism in some degree filled the place of the wider
sentiment, this gradually sank into decay and became a pretext
under cover of which the lower classes in the several communities
took toll of their wealthier fellow-citizens in the shape of public
works, largesses, amusements, &c., until the resources at the
disposal of the rich ran dry, the communities themselves in
many cases became insolvent, and the inexorable claims of the
central government were satisfied only by the surrender of
financial control to an imperial commissioner. Then the organs
of civic life became atrophied, political interest died out, and
the whole burden of administration, as well as that of defence,
fell upon the shoulders of the bureaucracy, which proved unequal
to the task.

In a world thus governed the individual was thrown more
and more upon his own resources—the pursuit of
wealth[475] and
pleasure, or the satisfaction of intellectual interests. Under
the rule of the Caesars much was done for education. Julius
Caesar bestowed Roman citizenship on “teachers of the liberal
arts”; Vespasian endowed professorships of Greek and Latin
oratory at Rome;[476] and later emperors, especially Antoninus
Pius, extended the same benefits to the provinces. Local
enterprise and munificence were also devoted to the cause of
education; we learn from the correspondence of the younger
Pliny that public schools were founded in the towns of northern
Italy. But though there was a wide diffusion of knowledge
under the empire, there was no true intellectual progress.
Augustus, it is true, gathered about him the most brilliant
writers of his time, and the debut of the new monarchy coincided
with the Golden Age of Roman literature; but this was of brief
duration, and the beginning of the Christian era saw the triumph
of classicism and the first steps in the decline which awaits all
literary movements which look to the past rather than the
future. Political oratory could not exist under an absolute
ruler; public life furnished no inspiring theme to poet or
historian; and literature became didactic or imitative, while
rhetoric degenerated into declamation. It is true that for
some time both literature and philosophy maintained an alliance
with the old republican aristocracy and voiced the undercurrent
of opposition to the empire; but both had ceased to be irreconcilable
before the time of Hadrian. Under his rule classicism
gave way to the archaism of which Fronto and Apuleius furnish
the most notable examples, and which preferred Cato and
Ennius to Cicero and Virgil. But this return to the past was
not followed by any renewed creative energy. It was a confession
of weakness and little more; and the widely diffused
culture of the Antonine period, though outwardly brilliant, had
no progressive energy and presented but a feeble resistance to
the dissolving forces of barbarism.

To strike the balance of loss and gain in the field of morals
is an exceedingly difficult task. The denunciations of the
satirists, especially of Juvenal, might lead us to believe that an
appalling state of depravity existed in the society of the early
empire; but satirists notoriously paint in glaring colours
for literary effect, and whatever may be said of the morality
of Rome—which was probably no better and no worse than
that of any cosmopolitan capital—there were sound and
healthy elements in plenty amongst the population of Italy
and the provinces. Doubtless the craving for amusement—especially
for the shows of the amphitheatre and the chariot-races
of the circus—infected the idle masses of the populace
in Rome and the larger towns, and was fostered by the policy
of despotism, which always aims at securing cheap popularity
with the proletariat; but the tendency of the time, not only in
the higher ranks, but also amongst humbler folk, was towards
a broader humanity and a more serious view of life and its
problems. Greek philosophy, especially the Stoic system,
in order to appeal to the practical Roman intelligence, found
itself obliged to elaborate a rule of conduct, and in many
households the philosopher, generally a Greek, played the part
of a director of consciences. The influence of these doctrines is
shown in the humane provisions of the civil law as elaborated
in the Antonine period, which did much to mitigate the lot of
the slave and to smooth the process by which freedom might
be attained.[477] Above all, a religious movement which drew its
motive power not from Greek philosophy, but from Oriental
mysticism, carried the human race far from its old moorings,
and culminated in the triumph of Christianity. All the Eastern
cults—whether of Cybele, of Isis, of the Syrian Baalim or of
the Persian Mithras—had this in common, that they promised
to their adherents redemption from the curse of the flesh and a
glorious immortality after death; and this fact gave them an
irresistible attraction for the disillusioned and overburdened
subjects of the emperors. The religion of Mithras, whose
doctrines were specially suited to the military temperament,
made its way wherever the armies of the empire were stationed,
and seemed likely at one moment to become universal; but
it was forced to yield to Christianity, which refused to tolerate
any rival, faced the empire with a claim to absolute dominion
in the spiritual sphere, and at length made that claim good
(see Roman Religion; Mithras;
Great Mother of the Gods).

Marcus Aurelius died in 180, and the reign of his worthless son,
Commodus (A.D. 180-93), was followed by a century of war
The empire from 180-284.
and disorder, during which nothing but the stern rule
of soldier emperors saved the empire from dissolution.
The first and ablest of these was Septimius Severus
(193-211), whose claims were disputed by Clodius
Albinus in the West, and by Pescennius Niger in the East;
in these struggles rival Roman forces, for the first time since the
accession of Vespasian, exhausted each other in civil
war.[478]
Severus emphasized strongly the military character of the
Principate; he abstained from seeking confirmation for his
authority from the senate, and deprived that body of most of
the share in the government which it still retained; he assumed
the title of proconsul in Rome itself, made the prefect of the
guard the vicegerent of his authority, and heaped privileges
upon the army, which, although they secured its entire devotion
to his family, impaired its efficiency as a fighting force and
thus weakened Rome in face of the barbarian
invader.[479] He
succeeded in founding a short-lived dynasty, which ended with
the attempt of the virtuous but weak Alexander (222-35) to
restore the independence of the senate. This led to a military
reaction, and the elevation of the brutal Maximinus, a Thracian
peasant, to the throne. The disintegration of the empire was
the natural result; for the various provincial armies put forward
their commanders as claimants to the purple. A hundred ties
bound them closely to the districts in which they were stationed;
their permanent camps had grown into towns, they had families
and farms; the unarmed provincials looked to them as their
natural protectors, and were attached to them by bonds of
intermarriage and by long intercourse. Now that they found
themselves left to repel by their own efforts the invaders from
without, they reasonably enough claimed the right to ignore the
central authority which was powerless to aid them, and to choose
for themselves imperatores whom they knew and trusted.
These “tyrants,” as they were called when unsuccessful, sprang
up in ever-increasing numbers, and weakened Rome's power
of resistance to the new enemies who were threatening her
frontiers—the Alamanni and Franks, who broke through the
German limes in 236; the Goths, who crossed the Danube in
247, raided the Balkan provinces, and defeated and slew the
emperor, Decius, in 251, and the restored Persian kingdom of
the Sassanidae (see Persia), whose rulers laid claim to all
the Asiatic possessions of Rome and in 260 captured Antioch
and made the emperor, Valerian, a prisoner. During the
reign of Gallienus, the son of Valerian (260-68), the evil
Reign of Gallienus, 260-268.
reached its height. The central authority was
paralysed; the Romanized districts beyond the Rhine
were irrevocably lost; the Persians were threatening
to overrun the Eastern provinces; the Goths had formed a
fleet of 500 sail which harried Asia Minor and even Greece
itself, where Athens, Corinth, Sparta and Argos were sacked;
and the legions on the frontiers were left to repel the enemies
of Rome as best they could. A provincial empire was
established by M. Cassianius Latinius Postumus in Gaul and
maintained by his successors, M. Piavonius Victorinus and
C. Pius Esuvius Tetricus.[480] Their authority was acknowledged,
not only in Gaul and by the troops on the Rhine, but by the
legions of Britain and Spain; and under Postumus at any rate
(259-69) the existence of the Gallic Empire was justified by
the repulse of the barbarians and by the restoration of peace
and security to the provinces of Gaul. On the Danube, in
Greece and in Asia Minor none of the “pretenders” enjoyed
more than a passing success. In the Far East, the Syrian
Odaenathus, prince of Palmyra[481] (q.v.), though officially only
Odaenathus and Zenobia at Palmyra.
the governor of the East (dux Orientis) under Gallienus,
drove the Persians out of Asia Minor and Syria,
recovered Mesopotamia, and ruled Syria, Arabia,
Armenia, Cappadocia and Cilicia with all the
independence of a sovereign. Odaenathus was murdered
in 266. His young son Vaballathus (Wahab-allath) succeeded
him in his titles, but the real power was vested in his
widow Zenobia, under whom not only the greater part of Asia
Minor but even the province of Egypt was forcibly added to
the dominions governed by the Palmyrene prince, who ceased
to acknowledge the supremacy of Rome.

Gallienus was murdered at Milan in 268, and after the brief
reign of Claudius II. (A.D. 268-70), who checked the advance
of the Goths, Aurelian (270-75) restored unity to
Restoration of unity by Aurelian, 273.
the distracted empire. Palmyra was destroyed and
Zenobia led a prisoner to Rome (in 273) and in the next
year the Gallic empire came to an end by the surrender
of Tetricus. Aurelian, it is true, abandoned the province
of Dacia, but the defences of the Danube were
strengthened, and in 276 Probus repulsed the Franks and
Alamanni, who had been pressing on the Rhine frontier for
some forty years. Finally, Carus (282) recovered Armenia and
Mesopotamia from the Persians and restored the frontier fixed
by Septimius Severus.

Although any serious loss of territory had been avoided,
the storms of the 3rd century had told with fatal effect upon the
State of the empire at the close of the 3rd century.
general condition of the empire. The “Roman
peace” had vanished; not only the frontier
territories, but the central districts of Greece, Asia Minor,
and even Italy itself, had suffered from the ravages
of war, and the fortification of Rome by Aurelian
was a significant testimony to the altered condition of
affairs. War, plague and famine had thinned the population
and crippled the resources of the provinces. On all sides
land was running waste, cities and towns were decaying, and
commerce was paralysed. Only with the greatest difficulty
were sufficient funds squeezed from the exhausted taxpayers
to meet the increasing cost of the defence of the frontiers. The
old established culture and civilization of the Mediterranean
world rapidly declined, and the mixture of barbaric rudeness
with Oriental pomp and luxury which marked the court, even
of the better emperors, such as Aurelian, was typical of the
general deterioration, which was accelerated by the growing
practice of settling barbarians on lands within the empire,
and of admitting them freely to service in the Roman
army.

Period II: The Dominate, A.D. 284-476.—(a) From theAccession of Diocletian to the Death of Theodosius (A.D. 284-395).
The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine. Augusti and Caesares.
The work of fortifying the empire alike against internal
sedition and foreign invasion, begun by Aurelian and
Probus, was completed by Diocletian and Constantine
the Great, whose system of government, novel as it
appears at first sight, was in reality the natural and
inevitable outcome of the history of the previous
century.[482] Its
object was twofold, to give increased stability to the imperial
authority itself, and to organize an efficient administrative
machinery throughout the empire. In the second year
of his reign Diocletian associated Maximian with
himself as colleague, and six years later (293) the hands of
the two “Augusti” were further strengthened by the proclamation
of Constantius and Galerius as “Caesares.” Precedents
for such an arrangement were to be found in the earlier
history of the Principate[483]; and it divided the burdens and
responsibilities of government, without sacrificing the unity of
the empire; for, although to each of the Augusti and Caesars a
separate sphere was assigned, the Caesars were subordinate to
the higher authority of the Augusti, and over all his three
colleagues Diocletian claimed to exercise a paramount control.
It also reduced the risk of a disputed succession by establishing
in the two Caesars the natural successors to the Augusti,
and it satisfied the jealous pride of the rival armies by
giving them imperatores of their own. The distribution of
power between Diocletian and his colleagues followed those
lines of division which the feuds of the previous century
had marked out. The armies of the Rhine, the Danube and
of Syria fell to the lot respectively of Constantius, Galerius
and Diocletian, the central districts of Italy and Africa to
Maximian.[484]

In the new system the imperial authority was finally
emancipated from all constitutional limitation and control and
Altered character of the imperial authority.
Levelling policy of Diocletian.
Degradation of Italy and Rome.
The new administrative system.
the last traces of its republican origin disappeared.
The emperors from Diocletian onwards were autocrats
in theory as well as in practice. This avowed
despotism Diocletian, following in the steps of Aurelian,
hedged round with all the pomp and majesty of
Oriental monarchy. The final adoption of the title dominus,
the diadem on the head, the robes of silk and gold, the replacement
of the republican salutation of a fellow-citizen by the
adoring prostration even of the highest in rank before their lord
and master, were all significant marks of the new
regime.[485] In
the hands of this absolute ruler was placed the entire
policy of control of an elaborate administrative machinery.
Most of the old local and national distinctions, privileges
and liberties which had once flourished within
the empire had already disappeared under the levelling
influence of imperial rule, and the process was now completed.
Roman citizenship had, since the edict of Caracalla,
ceased to be the privilege of a minority. Diocletian
finally reduced Italy and Rome to the level of the
provinces: the provincial land-tax and provincial
government were introduced into Italy,[486] while Rome ceased to
be even in name the seat of imperial authority.[487] Throughout
the whole area of the empire a uniform system of
administration was established, the control of which
was centred in the imperial palace.[488] Between the civil
and military departments the separation was
complete. At the head of the former were the praetorian prefects,[489]
next below them the vicarii, who had charge of the
dioceses; below these again the governors of the separate
provinces (praesides, correctores, consulares),[490] under each of
whom was a host of minor officials. Parallel with this civil
hierarchy was the series of military officers, from the magistrimilitum, the duces, and comites downwards.[491] In both there is
the utmost possible subordination and division of authority.
The subdivision of provinces, begun by the emperors of the 2nd
century, was systematically carried out by Diocletian, and
each official, civil or military, was placed directly under the
orders of a superior; thus a continuous chain of authority connected
the emperor with the meanest official in his service.
Finally, the various grades in these two imperial services were
carefully marked by the appropriation to each of distinctive
titles, the highest being that of illustris, which was confined to
the prefects and to the military magistri and comites, and to the
chief ministers.[492]

There can be little doubt that on the whole these reforms
prolonged the existence of the empire, by creating a machinery
Effects of these reforms.
which enabled the stronger emperors to utilize effectively
all its available resources, and which even to some
extent made good the deficiencies of weaker rulers.
But in many points they failed to attain their object.
Diocletian's division of the imperial authority among colleagues,
subject to the general control of the senior Augustus, was effectually
discredited by the twenty years of almost constant conflict
which followed his own abdication (305-23). Constantine's
partition of the empire among his three sons was not more
successful in ensuring tranquillity, and in the final division of the
East and West between Valens and Valentinian (364) the
essential principle of Diocletian's scheme, the maintenance of
a single central authority, was abandoned. The “tyrants,”
the curse of the 3rd century, were far from unknown in the 4th.
The system, moreover, while it failed altogether to remove some
of the existing evils, aggravated others. The already
overburdened financial resources of the empire were strained still
further by the increased expenditure necessitated by the substitution
of four imperial courts for one, and by the multiplication
in every direction of paid officials. The gigantic bureaucracy
of the 4th century proved, in spite of its undoubted services,
an intolerable weight upon the energies of the empire.

Diocletian and Maximian formally abdicated their high office
in 305. Nineteen years later Constantine I., the Great, the
Constantine the Great.
sole survivor of six rival emperors, united the whole
empire under his own rule. His reign of fourteen
years was marked by two events of first-rate importance,—the
recognition of Christianity as the religion of the
empire, and the building of the new capital at Byzantium.
Recognition of Christianity. Contantinople.
The alliance which Constantine inaugurated between
the Christian church and the imperial government,
while it enlisted on the side of the state one of the most
powerful of the new forces with which it had to reckon,
imposed a check, which was in time to become a powerful one,
on the imperial authority. The establishment of the new
“City of Constantine” as a second Rome paved the
way for the final separation of East and West by
providing the former for the first time with a
suitable seat of government on the Bosphorus. The
death of Constantine in 337 was followed, as the abdication
of Diocletian had been, by the outbreak of quarrels among
rival Caesars. Of the three sons of Constantine who in
337 divided the empire between them, Constantine the
eldest fell in civil war against his brother Constans;
Constans himself was, ten years afterwards, defeated and slain
by Magnentius; and the latter in his turn was in 353 vanquished
by Constantine's only surviving son Constantius.
Contantius II., 351-63.
Thus for the second time the whole empire was united
under the rule of a member of the house of Constantine.
But in 355 Constantius granted the title of Caesar to
his cousin Julian and placed him in charge of Gaul, where
the momentary elevation of a tyrant, Silvanus, and still
more the inroads of Franks and Alamanni, had excited alarm.
But Julian's successes during the next five years were such
as to arouse the jealous fears of Constantius. In order to
weaken his suspected rival the legions under Julian in Gaul
were suddenly ordered to march eastward against the Persians
Julian, 361-63.
(360). They refused; and when the order was
repeated, replied by proclaiming Julian himself emperor
and Augustus. Julian, with probably sincere reluctance,
accepted the position, but the death of Constantius in
361 saved the empire from the threatened civil war. Julian's
attempted restoration of pagan and in especial of Hellenic
worships had no more permanent effect than the war which he
courageously waged against the multitudinous abuses which
had grown up in the luxurious court of Constantius.[493] But his
vigorous administration in Gaul undoubtedly checked the
barbarian advance across the Rhine, and postponed the loss
of the Western provinces; on the contrary, his campaign in
Persia, brilliantly successful at first, ended in his own death
Jovian, 363-64. Valentinian I., 364-75. Division of the Empire, 364. Valens, 364-78. Revolt of the Goths.
(363), and his successor, Jovian, immediately
surrendered the territories beyond the Tigris won by
Diocletian seventy years before. Jovian died on the
17th of February 364; and on the 26th of February Valentinian
was acknowledged as emperor of the army at Nicaea.
In obedience to the wish of the soldiers that he should
associate a colleague with himself, he conferred the
title of Augustus upon his brother Valens, and the
division of the empire was at last effected,—Valentinian
became emperor of the West, Valens of the East.
Valentinian maintained the integrity of the empire
until his death (in 375), which deprived the weaker Valens of
a trusted counsellor and ally, and was followed by a
serious crisis on the Danube. In 376 the Goths,
hard pressed by their new foes from the eastward, the
Huns, sought and obtained the protection of the Roman
Empire. They were transported across the Danube and settled
in Moesia, but, indignant at the treatment they received, they
rose in arms against their protectors. In 378 at Adrianople
Valens was defeated and killed, and the victorious Goths advanced
eastward to the very walls of Constantinople. Once
more, however, the danger passed away. The skill and tact
Theodosius I., 378-95.
of Theodosius, who had been proclaimed emperor of
the East by Gratian,[494] conciliated the Goths; they
were granted an allowance, and in large numbers
entered the service of the Roman emperor. The remaining
years of Theodosius's reign (382-95) were mainly engrossed
by the duty of upholding the increasingly feeble authority of
his western colleague against the attacks of pretenders. Maximus,
the murderer of Gratian (383), was at first recognized by
Theodosius as Caesar, and left in undisturbed command of
Gaul, Spain and Britain; but, when in 386 he proceeded to
oust Valentinian II; from Italy and Africa, Theodosius marched
westward, crushed him, and installed Valentinian as emperor
of the West. In the very next year, however, the murder of
Valentinian (392) by Arbogast, a Frank, was followed by the
appearance of a fresh tyrant in the person of Eugenius, a
domestic officer and nominee of Arbogast himself.
Once more Theodosius marched westward, and near
Division of the empire between Arcadius and Honorius. Fall of the Western Empire. Distress of the provinces in the 4th century.
Aquileia decisively defeated his opponents. But
his victory was quickly followed by his own illness
and death (395), and the fortunes of East and West
passed into the care of his two sons Arcadius and
Honorius.

(b) From the Death of Theodosius to the Extinction of theWestern Empire (395-476).—Through more than a century
from the accession of Diocletian the Roman Empire
had succeeded in holding at bay the swarming hordes
of barbarians. But, though no province had yet
been lost, as Dacia had been lost in the century before, and
though the frontier lines of the Rhine and the Danube were
still guarded by Roman forts and troops, there were signs in
plenty that a catastrophe was at hand.

From all the writers who deal with the 4th century we have
one long series of laments over the depression and misery of
the provinces.[495] To meet the increased expenditure
necessary to maintain the legions, to pay the hosts of
officials, and to keep up the luxurious splendour of
the imperial courts, not only were the taxes raised
in amount, but the most oppressive and inquisitorial
methods were adopted in order to secure for the imperial
treasury every penny that could be wrung from the wretched
taxpayer. The results are seen in such pictures as that
which the panegyrist Eumenius[496] draws of the state of
Gaul (306-12) under Constantine, in the accounts of the
same province under Julian fifty years later, in those given
by Zosimus early in the 5th century, and in the
stringent regulations of the Theodosian code, dealing with
the assessment and collection of the taxes. Among the
graver symptoms of economic ruin were the decrease of population,
which seriously diminished not only the number of
taxpayers, but the supply of soldiers for the legions;[497] the
spread of infanticide; the increase of waste lands whose owners
and cultivators had fled to escape the tax collector; the declining
prosperity of the towns; and the constantly recurring
riots and insurrections, both among starving peasants, as in
Gaul,[498] and in populous cities like Antioch.[499] The distress was
aggravated by the civil wars, by the rapacity of tyrants, such
as Maxentius and Maximus, but above all by the raids of the
barbarians, who seized every opportunity afforded by the
dissensions or incapacity of the emperors to cross the frontiers
and harry the lands of the provincials. Constantine (306-12),
Julian (356-60) and Valentinian I. (364-75) had each to
give a temporary breathing-space to Gaul by repelling the
Franks and Alamanni. Britain was harassed by Picts and
Scots from the north (367-70), while the Saxon pirates swept
the northern seas and the coasts both of Britain and Gaul.
On the Danube the Quadi, Sarmatae, and above all the Goths,
poured at intervals into the provinces of Pannonia and Moesia,
and penetrated to Macedon and Thrace. In the East, in
addition to the constant border feud with Persia, we hear of
ravages by the Isaurian mountaineers, and by a new enemy,
the Saracens.[500]

Even more ominous of coming danger was the extent to
which the European half of the empire was becoming barbarized.
Barbarians within the empire.
The policy which had been inaugurated by Augustus
himself of settling barbarians within the frontiers
had been taken up on a larger scale and in a more
systematic way by the Illyrian emperors of the 3rd
century, and was continued by their successors in
the 4th. In Gaul, in the provinces south of the Danube, even in
Macedon and Italy, large barbarian settlements had been
made—Theodosius in particular distinguishing himself by his liberality
in this respect. Nor did the barbarians admitted
during the 4th century merely swell the class of half-servile
coloni. On the contrary, they not only constituted
to an increasing extent the strength of the imperial forces,
but won their way in ever-growing numbers to posts of
dignity and importance in the imperial service. Under
Constantine the palace was crowded with Franks.[501] Julian
led Gothic troops against Persia, and the army with
which Theodosius defeated the tyrant Maximus (388)
contained large numbers of Huns, and Alans, as well as of
Goths. The names of Arbogast, Stilicho and Rufinus are
sufficient proof of the place held by barbarians near the
emperor's person and in the control of the provinces and
legions of Rome; and the relations of Arbogast to his nominee
for the purple, Eugenius, were an anticipation of those which
existed between Ricimer and the emperors of the latter half
of the 5th century.

It was by barbarians already settled within the empire that
the first of the series of attacks which finally separated the
Barbaric invasions. Alaric and the Visigoths.
western provinces from the empire and set up a
barbaric ruler in Italy were made, and it was in men of
barbarian birth that Rome found her ablest and most
successful defenders. The Visigoths whom Alaric led into
Italy had been settled south of the Danube as the
allies of the empire since the accession of Theodosius.
But, like the Germans of the days of Caesar,
they wanted land for their own, and Alaric himself aspired to
raise himself to the heights which had been reached before him
by the Vandal Stilicho at Ravenna and the Goth Rufinus
at Constantinople. The jealousy which existed between the
rulers of the western and eastern empires furthered his plans.
In the name of Arcadius, the emperor of the east, or at least
with the connivance of Arcadius's minister Rufinus, he occupied
the province of Illyricum, and from thence ravaged Greece,
which, according to the existing division of provinces, belonged
to the western empire. Thence in 396 he retreated before
Stilicho to Illyricum, with the command of which he was now
formally invested by Arcadius; he thus gained a base of operations
against Italy.[502] In 400 he led his people, with their wives
and families, their wagons and treasure, to seek lands for
themselves south of the Alps. But in this first invasion he
penetrated no farther than the plains of Lombardy, and after
the desperate battle of Pollentia (402 or 403) he slowly withdrew
from Italy, his retreat being hastened by the promises
of gold freely made to him by the imperial government. Not
until the autumn of 408 did Alaric again cross the Alps.
Stilicho was dead; the barbarian troops in Honorius's service
had been provoked into joining Alaric by the anti-Teutonic
policy of Honorius and his ministers, and Alaric marched unopposed
to Rome. The payment of a heavy ransom, however,
saved the city. Negotiations followed between Alaric and
the court of Ravenna. Alaric's demands were moderate
but Honorius would grant neither lands for his people nor the
honourable post in the imperial service which he asked for himself.
Once more Alaric sat down before Rome, and the citizens
were forced to agree to his terms. Attalus, a Greek, the prefect
of the city, was declared Augustus, and Alaric accepted the
post of commander-in-chief. But after a few months Alaric
formally deposed Attalus, on account of his incapacity, and
renewed his offers to Honorius. Again they were declined,
and Alaric marched to the siege and sack of Rome
(410).[503]
His death followed hard on his capture of Rome. Two
The Visigoths in Gaul.
years later (412) his successor Ataulf led the
Visigoths to find in Gaul the lands which Alaric had
sought in Italy. It is characteristic of the anarchical
condition of the west that Ataulf and his Goths should
have fought for Honorius in Gaul against the tyrants,[504]
and in Spain against the Vandals, Suebi and Alani; and
it was with the consent of Honorius that in 419 Wallia,
who had followed Ataulf as king of the Visigoths, finally
settled with his people in south-western Gaul and founded
the Visigothic monarchy.[505]

It was about the same period that the accomplished fact
of the division of Spain between the three barbarian tribes of
Vandals, Suebi and Alani in Spain.
Vandals, Suebi and Alani was in a similar manner
recognized by the paramount authority of the emperor
of the west.[506] These peoples had crossed the Rhine
at the time when Alaric was making his first attempt
on Italy. A portion of the host led by Radagaisus[507]
actually invaded Italy, but was cut to pieces by Stilicho
near Florence (405), the rest pressed on through Gaul, crossed
the Pyrenees, and entered the as yet untouched province of
Spain.

Honorius died in 423. With the single exception of
Britain,[508]
no province had yet formally broken loose from the empire.
Death of Honorius, 423.
But over a great part of the west the authority of the
emperors was now little more than nominal; throughout
the major part of Gaul and in Spain the barbarians
had settled, and barbarian states were growing up which
recognized the supremacy of the emperor, but were in all
essentials independent of his control.

The long reign of Valentinian III. (423-55) is marked by
two events of first-rate importance—the conquest of Africa by
Valentinian III., 423-55. Vandal conquest of Africa.
the Vandals[509] and the invasion of Gaul and Italy by
Attila. The Vandal settlement in Africa was closely
akin in its origin and results to those of the
Visigoths and of the Vandals themselves in Gaul and
Spain. Here, as there, the occasion was given by
the jealous quarrels of powerful imperial ministers.
The feud between Boniface, count of Africa, and Aëtius, the
“master-general” or “count of Italy,” opened the way to
Africa for the Vandal king Gaiseric (Genseric), as that between
Stilicho and Rufinus had before set Alaric in motion westward,
and as the quarrel between the tyrant Constantine and
the ministers of Honorius had paved the way for the Vandals,
Suebes and Alans into Spain. In this case, too, land-hunger
was the impelling motive with the barbarian invader, and in
Africa, as in Gaul and Spain, the invaders' acquisitions were
confirmed by the imperial authority which they still professed
to recognize. In 429 Gaiseric, king of the Vandals, crossed
with his warriors, their families and goods, to the province
of Africa, hitherto almost untouched by the ravages of war.
Thanks to the quarrels of Boniface and Aëtius, their task
was an easy one. The province was quickly overrun. In
435[510] a formal treaty secured them in the possession of a
large portion of the rich lands which were the granary of
Rome, in exchange for a payment probably of corn and oil.
Carthage was taken in 439, and by 440 the Vandal kingdom
was firmly established.

Eleven years later (451) Attila invaded Gaul, but this Hunnish
movement was in a variety of ways different from those of the
Attila and the Huns.
Visigoths and Vandals. Nearly a century had passed
since the Huns first appeared in Europe, and drove the
Goths to seek shelter within the Roman lines. Attila
was now the ruler of a great empire in central and northern
Europe and, in addition to his own Huns, the German tribes
along the Rhine and Danube and far away to the north owned
him as king. He confronted the Roman power as an equal; and,
unlike the Gothic and Vandal chieftains, he treated with the
emperors of east and west as an independent sovereign. His
advance on Gaul and Italy threatened, not the establishment
of one more barbaric chieftain on Roman soil, but the subjugation
of the civilized and Christian West to the rule of a
heathen and semi-barbarous conqueror. But the Visigoths
in Gaul, Christian and already half Romanized, rallied to the
Battle of Châlons.
aid of the empire against a common foe. Attila,
defeated at Châlons[511] by Aëtius, withdrew into Pannonia
(451). In the next year he overran Lombardy, but
penetrated no farther south, and in 453 he died. With the
murder of Valentinian III. (455) the western branch of the
house of Theodosius came to an end, and the next twenty
years witnessed the accession and deposition of nine
emperors.

Under the three-months' rule of Maximus, the Vandals under
Gaiseric invaded Italy and sacked Rome. From 456-72 the actual
Sack of Rome by the Vandals. Ricimer supreme in Italy. Orestes, the Pannonian.
ruler of Italy was Ricimer, the Suebe. Of the four
emperors whom he placed on the throne, Majorian
(457-61) alone played any imperial part outside
Italy.[512] Ricimer died in 472, and two years later a
Pannonian, Orestes, attempted to fill his place. He
deposed Julius Nepos and proclaimed as Augustus
his own son Romulus. But the barbarian mercenaries
in Italy determined to secure for themselves a position
there such as that which their kinsfolk had won in
Gaul and Spain and Africa. Their demand for a third
of the lands of Italy was refused by Orestes,[513] and they instantly
rose in revolt. On the defeat and death of Orestes they proclaimed
their leader, Odoacer the Rugian,[514] king of Italy.
Romulus Augustulus. King Odoacer.
Romulus Augustulus laid down his imperial dignity, and
the court at Constantinople was informed that there
was no longer an emperor of the West.[515]

The installation of a barbarian king in Italy was the
natural climax of the changes which had been taking place
in the West throughout the 5th century. In Spain,
Gaul and Africa barbarian chieftains were already
established as kings. In Italy, for the last twenty
years, the real power had been wielded by a barbarian officer.
Odoacer, when he decided to dispense with the nominal authority
of an emperor of the West, placed Italy on the same level of
independence with the neighbouring provinces. But the old
ties with Rome were not severed. The new king of Italy
formally recognized the supremacy of the one Roman emperor
at Constantinople, and was invested in return with the rank of
“patrician,” which had been held before him by Aëtius and
Ricimer. In Italy too, as in Spain and Gaul, the laws, the
administrative system and the language remained
Roman.[516]
But the emancipation of Italy and the Western provinces from
direct imperial control, which is signalized by Odoacer's accession,
has rightly been regarded as marking the opening of a new
epoch. It made possible in the West the development of a
Romano-German civilization; it facilitated the growth of
new and distinct states and nationalities; it gave a new impulse
to the influence of the Christian church, and laid the foundations
of the power of the bishops of Rome.

Authorities.—I. Republican Period: Ancient Sources.—The
writing of history, like other branches of literature, was a late
growth amongst the Romans, and it is very difficult to determine
how far authentic records were preserved of the earlier republican
period. It seems that the calendars issued yearly by the pontifices
and posted on the walls of the Regia were inscribed with brief
notices of important events (“digna memoratu . . . domi militiaeque
terra marique gesta per singulos dies,” Serv. Ad Aen. i. 373);
these tabulae were preserved and edited in 80 books by P. Mucius
Scaevola (pontifex maximus, 130-?114 B.C.) under the name of
Annales Maximi. The Commentarii preserved in the archives of
the various priestly colleges and official boards (e.g. consuls and
censors), which appear to have consisted mainly of instructions
as to official procedure, doubtless furnished historical material in
the shape of precedents and decisions. It is hard to say how much
of this documentary evidence survived the burning of Rome by
the Gauls; the fact that the earliest solar eclipse mentioned in the
Annales Maximi was that of the 5th of June, 351 B.C., casts doubt
on the completeness of the earlier records.

Many modern scholars have supposed that these meagre official
records were supplemented by—(a) popular poetry, more or less
legendary in content; (b) family chronicles, the substance of
which was worked up into the funeral orations (laudationes funebres)
pronounced at the grave of distinguished Romans. The existence
of the former class of documents is, however, quite unsupported
by evidence; as to family tradition, we cannot say more than
that it has probably left a deposit in the accounts of republican
history handed down to us, and caused the exploits of the members
of illustrious houses to be exaggerated in importance.

Setting aside the works of Greek historians who incidentally
touched on Roman affairs, such as Hieronymus of Cardia, who
wrote of the wars of Pyrrhus as a contemporary, and Timaeus of
Tauromenium (c. 345-250 B.C.), who treated of the history of Sicily
and the West down to 272 B.C., the earliest writers on Roman history
were Q. Fabius Pictor[517] and L. Cincius Alimentus, who lived during
the Second Punic War and wrote in Greek. We are told by Dionysius
that they treated the earlier history summarily, but wrote more
fully of their own times. The were followed in their use of the
Greek language by C. Acilius (introduced a Greek embassy to the
senate, 155 B.C.) and A. Postumius Albinus (consul, 151 B.C.). In
the meantime, however, M. Porcius Cato the Elder (234-149 B.C.),
the leader of the national party at Rome and a vigorous opponent
of Greek influence, had treated of Roman antiquities in his Origines.
This work was not purely annalistic, but treated of the ethnography
and customs of the Italian peoples, &c. Cato founded no school
of antiquarian research, but his use of the Latin language as the
medium of historical writing was followed by the annalists of the
Gracchan period, L. Cassius Hemina, L. Calpurnius Piso (consul,
133 B.C.), C. Sempronius Tuditanus (consul, 129 B.C.), Cn. Gellius,
Vennonius, C. Fannius (consul, 122 B.C.), and L. Caelius
Antipater.[518]
By these writers some attempt was made to apply canons of criticism
to the traditional accounts of early Roman history, but they did
little more than rationalize the more obviously mythical narratives;
they also followed Greek literary models and introduced speeches,
&c., for artistic effect. Where they wrote as contemporaries,
however, e.g. Fannius in his account of the Gracchan movement,
their works were of the highest value. About the beginning of
this period Polybius (q.v.) had published his history, which originally
embraced the period of the Punic wars, and was afterwards continued
to 146 B.C. His influence was not fully exerted upon Roman
historians until the close of the 2nd and early part of the 1st century
B.C., when a school of writers arose who treated history with a
practical purpose, endeavouring to trace the motives of action and
to point a moral for the edification of their readers. To this school
belonged Sempronius Asellio, Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius
Antias and C. Licinius Macer (d. 66 B.C.). Their writings were
diffuse, rhetorical and inaccurate; Livy complains of the gross
exaggerations of Valerius (whom he followed blindly in his earlier
books), and Macer seems to have drawn much of his material from
sources of very doubtful authenticity. Contemporary history was
written by Cornelius Sisenna (119-67 B.C.), and the work of Polybius
was continued to 86 B.C. by the Stoic Posidonius (c. 135-45 B.C.),
a man of encyclopedic knowledge. From the Gracchan period
onwards the memoirs, speeches and correspondence of distinguished
statesmen were often published; of these no specimens are extant
until we come to the Ciceronian period, when the Speeches and Letters
of Cicero (q.v.) and the Commentaries of Julius Caesar (q.v.)—the
latter continued to the close of the Civil War by other hands—furnish
invaluable evidence for the history of their times. We possess
examples of historical pamphlets with a strong party colouring in
Sallust's tracts on the Jugurthine War and the conspiracy of Catiline.
During the same period Roman antiquities, genealogy, chronology,
&c., were exhaustively treated by M. Terentius Varro (116-27 B.C.)
(q.v.) in his Antiquitates (in 41 books) and other works. Cicero's
friend, M. Pomponius Atticus, also compiled a chronological table
which was widely used, and Cornelius Nepos (q.v.) wrote a series of
historical biographies which have come down to us.

In the Augustan age the materials accumulated by previous
generations were worked up by compilers whose works are in some
cases preserved. The work of Livy (q.v.) covered the history of
Rome from its foundation to 9 B.C. in 142 books; of these only
35 are preserved in their entirety, while the contents of the rest
are known in outline from an epitome (periochae) and from the
compendia of Florus and later authors. Diodorus Siculus (q.v.)
of Agyrium in Sicily followed the earlier annalists in the sections
of his Universal History (down to Caesar) which dealt with Roman
affairs; Dionysius of Halicarnassus (q.v.), in his Roman Archaeology
(published in 7 B.C.), treated early Roman history in a more ambitious
and rhetorical style, with greater fulness than Livy, whose work he
seems to have used. Universal histories were also written in the
Augustan age by Nicolaus of Damascus, a protégé of Herod the Great,
and Trogus Pompeius, whose work is known to us from the epitome
of Justin (2nd century A.D.). Juba, the learned king of Mauretania
installed by Augustus, wrote a History of Rome as well as antiquarian
works. Strabo (q.v.), whose Geography is extant, was the author
of a continuation of Polybius's history (to 27 B.C.). The learning of
the time was enshrined in the encyclopedia of Verrius Flaccus, of
which we possess part of Festus's abridgment (2nd century A.D.),
together with an Epitome of Festus by Paulus Diaconus (temp.
Charlemagne). An official list of the consuls and other chief magistrates
of the republic was inscribed on the walls of the Regia
(rebuilt 36 B.C.), followed somewhat later by a similar list of triumphatores;
the former of these is known as the Fasti Capitolini,
(C.I.L.I.2, 1 sqq.), since the fragments which have been recovered
are preserved in the Palace of the Conservatori on the Capitol.
The Forum of Augustus (see Rome, section Archaeology) was decorated
with statues of famous Romans, on the bases of which were inscribed
short accounts of their exploits; some of these elogia are preserved
(cf. Dessau, Inscr. Lat. sel. 50 sqq.).

Amongst writers of the imperial period who dealt with republican
history the most important are Vellcius Paterculus, whose compendium
of Roman history was published in A.D. 30; Plutarch
(c. A.D. 45-125), in whose biographies much contemporary material
was worked up; Appian, who wrote under the Antonines and
described the wars of the republic under geographical headings
(partly preserved) and the civil wars in five books, and Dio Cassius
(v. infra), of whose history only that portion which deals with events
from 69 B.C. onwards is extant. The date of Granius Licinianus,
whose fragments throw light on the earlier civil wars, is not certain.

The evidence of inscriptions (q.v.) and coins (q.v.) begins to be of
value during the 150 years of the republic. A series of laws and
Senatus consulta (beginning with the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus,
189 B.C.) throws light on constitutional questions, while the
coins struck from about 150 B.C. onwards bear types illustrative
of the traditions preserved by the families to which the masters
of the mint (III viri monetales) belonged.

Modern Authorities.—The principles of historical criticism may
be said to have been formulated by Giambattista Vico (q.v.), whose
principi di scienza nuova were published in 1725. The credibility
of the traditional account of Roman republican history was called
in question by Louis de Beaufort (Dissertation sur l'incertitude descing premiers siècles de l'histoire romaine, 1738); but the modern
critical movement dates from Niebuhr, two volumes of whose
Römische Geschichte appeared in 1811-12 (the third was published
after his death in 1832, his lectures in 1846). The early history of
Rome was fully treated by Niebuhr's follower, F. C. A. Schwegler,
whose Römische Geschichte in 3 vols. (1853-58) was continued to
327 B.C. by O. Clason (vols. 4 and 5, 1873-76). A reaction against the
negative criticism of Niebuhr was headed by J. Rubino, who showed
in his Untersuchungen über römische Verfassung und Geschichte
(1839) that the growth of the Roman constitution might be traced
with some approach to certainty by the analysis of institutions.
It was left for Theodor Mommsen (Römische Geschichte, 1st ed.,
1854-56; Eng. trans. new ed. in 5 vols., 1894; Römische Forschungen,
1864-79; Römisches Staatsrecht, 1st ed., 1872-75 [in the Handbuchder römischen Alterthümer, begun by Becker in 1843 and continued
under the supervision of J. Marquardt]; Römisches Strafrecht,
1899, and many other works) to reduce Roman constitutional
history to a science. Mommsen substituted for the detailed
criticism of the traditional narrative a picture of the growth of
Italian civilization based on linguistic, literary and monumental
evidence. W. Ihne (Römische Geschichte, 8 vols., 1868-90) dealt
more fully with the course of events as related by ancient historians.
L. Lange's Römische Alterthümer (1856-71), 3 vols., treated constitutional
history in a narrative form. In more recent times
Eduard Meyer has treated of early Italian history in his Geschichtedes Alterthums, vols. ii.-v. (1893-1902); and Ettore Pais, in his
Storia di Roma, vols. i.-ii. (1893-99), has subjected the narratives
of Roman history down to the Samnite wars to a searching and in
many cases exaggerated criticism. De Sanctis, in his Storia deiRomani (2 vols., 1907) (down to the establishment of the Roman
hegemony in Italy), combines radical criticism of tradition with
a constructive use of archaeological and other evidence. Heitland's
Roman Republic (3 vols., 1909) is a fresh and independent work.
The last century of the republic has been the subject of many works
(see reff. in text and biographical articles). W. Drumann (GeschichteRoms, 1834-44; new ed. by Groebe in progress) gave an exhaustive
biographical account of the contemporaries of Caesar and Cicero;
A. H. J. Greenidge's History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 70 (vol. i.
1904) was unfortunately cut short by the author's early death in
1906; G. Ferrero's Grandezza e Decadenza di Roma (in progress, Eng.
trans. of vols. i., ii., 1907; iii.-v., 1909) is ambitious but unsound.

II. Imperial Period: Ancient Sources.—The memoirs of Augustus
as well as those of his contemporaries (Messalla, Agrippa, Maecenas,
&c.) and successors (Tiberius, Agrippina the younger, &c.) have
perished, but we possess the Res gestae divi Augusti inscribed on the
walls of his temple at Ancyra (ed. Mommsen, 1883). Few historical
works were produced under the earlier Julio-Claudian emperors;
Cremutius Cordus lost his life under Tiberius for the freedom with
which his opinion of the triumvirs was expressed. Aufidius Bassus
wrote the history of the civil wars and early empire, perhaps
to A.D. 49, and this was continued by Pliny the Elder (q.v.) in
31 books, probably to the accession of Vespasian.[519] These works,
together with those of Fabius Rusticus, a friend of Seneca, and
Cluvius Rufus, a courtier under Nero, were amongst the authorities
used by Tacitus (q.v.), whose Annals (properly called ab excessu diviAugusti) and Histories, when complete, carried the story of the
empire down to A.D. 96.[520] Tacitus wrote under Trajan, upon whom
the younger Pliny pronounced his Panegyric; Pliny's correspondence
with Trajan about the affairs of Bithynia, which he administered in
A.D. 111-13, is of great historical value. Suetonius (q.v.), who was
for some time secretary of state to Hadrian, wrote biographies of the
emperors from Julius Caesar to Domitian, which contain much
interesting gossip. Arrian, a Bithynian Greek promoted by Hadrian
to important posts, wrote on Rome's policy and wars in the East.
Appian (v. supra) dealt with the wars waged under the early empire
in the closing books of his work, which have not been preserved.
Dio Cassius, a Bithynian who attained to the dignity of a second
consulship as the colleague of Severus Alexander, wrote a history
of Rome to the death of Elagabalus in 80 books. We possess
only epitomes and excerpts of the portion dealing with events from
A.D. 46 onwards, except for parts of the 78th and 79th books, in
which Dio's narrative of contemporary events is especially valuable.
Herodian, a Syrian employed in the imperial service, wrote a history
of the emperors from Commodus to Gordian III., which as the work
of a contemporary is not without value, although the author had no
historical insight. L. Marius Maximus compiled biographies of the
emperors from Nerva to Elagabalus which, like those of Suetonius,
contained much worthless gossip. His work was amongst the
sources used in the compilation of the Historia Augusta (see further
Augustan History), upon which we are obliged to rely for the
history of the 3rd century A.D. This work consists in a series of
lives of the emperors (including most of the pretenders to that title)
from Hadrian to Carinus, professedly written by six authors,
Spartianus, Vulcacius Gallicanus, Capitolinus, Lampridius, Trebellius
Pollio, and Vopiscus, under Diocletian and Constantine. Modern
criticism has shown that (at least in its present form) it is a compilation
made towards the close of the 4th century; it is not even
certain that any of the above-named writers really existed, and the
documents inserted in the text are palpable forgeries. The earlier
biographies, however, contain much authentic information, which
seems to have been derived from a good contemporary source. The
fragments of Dexippus, an Athenian who successfully defended his
native town against the Goths, throw much light on the barbaric
invasions of the 3rd century. Under Diocletian and his successors
(A.D. 289-321) were delivered twelve Panegyrics by Eumenius and
other court rhetoricians which possess slight historical value. The
history of the final struggle between church and empire is told from
the Christian point of view by the author of the De mortibuspersecutorum—perhaps Lactantius, the tutor of Crispus. Eusebius's
Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine give an ex parte
version of the events which they relate; the first of two tracts
published under the name of the Anonymus Valesianus furnishes
a brief contemporary narrative of the period 305-37, without
Christian prepossessions; while the lost work of Praxagoras treated
the history of Constantine from the pagan standpoint. The most
important historian of the 4th century was Ammianus Marcellinus,
a native of Antioch and an officer in the imperial guard, who continued
the work of Tacitus (in Latin) to the death of Valens. We
possess the last eighteen books of his history which cover the years
A.D. 353-78. Two compendia of imperial history pass under the
name of Aurelius Victor, the Caesares, or lives of the emperors from
Augustus to Julian, and the Epitome de Caesaribus (not by the same
author,) which goes down to Theodosius I. Similar works are the
Breviarum of Eutropius (secretary of state under Valens) and the
still more brief epitome of Festus. The writings of the Emperor
Julian and of the rhetoricians Libanius, Themistius and Eunapius—the
last-named continued the history of Dexippus to A.D. 404—are
of great value for the latter part of the 4th century A.D. They wrote
as pagans, while the Christian version of events is given by the
three orthodox historians Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, and
the Arian Philostorgius, all of whom wrote in the 5th century. An
imperial official, Zosimus, writing in the latter half of that century,
gave a sketch of imperial history to A.D. 410; the latter part is
valuable, being based on contemporary writings, e.g. those of the
Egyptian Olympiodorus, of whose work some fragments are preserved.
The bishops Synesius and Palladius, who lived under
Arcadius and Theodosius II., furnish valuable information as to
their own times; while the fragments of Priscus tell us much of
Attila and the Hunnish invasions. Mention must also be made of
the poets and letter-writers of the 4th and 5th centuries—Ausonius,
Claudian, Symmachus, Paulinus of Nola, Sidonius Apollinaris,
Prudentius, Merobaudes and others—from whose writings much
historical information is derived. Cassiodorus, the minister of
Theodoric, wrote a history of the Goths, transmitted to us in the
Historia Gothorum of Jordanes (c. A.D. 550), which gives an account
of the earlier barbaric invasions.

Several chronological works were compiled in the 4th and 5th
centuries. It will suffice to name the Chronology of Eusebius
(to A.D. 324), translated by Jerome and carried down to A.D. 378;
the Chronicle of Prosper Tiro, based on Jerome and continued
to A.D. 455; the Chronography of A.D. 354, an illustrated calendar
containing miscellaneous information; and the works based on the
so-called Chronica Constantinopolitana (not preserved), such as the
Fasti of Hydatius (containing valuable notices of the period A.D.
379-468). Some minor chronological works such as the ChroniconRavennae are published in Mommsen's Chronica Minora. The
Chronicon Paschale, primarily a table giving the cyle of Easter
celebrations, was compiled in the 7th century A.D.

The Codes of Law, especially the Codex Theodosianus (A.D. 438)
and the Code of Justinian, as well as the Army List of the early 5th
century, known as the Notitia Dignitatum, possess great historical
value. For the inscriptions of the empire, which are of incalculable
importance as showing the working of the imperial system in its
details, see Inscriptions; the coins (q.v.) also throw much light on
the dark places of history in the lack of other authorities. Egyptian
papyri are not only instructive as to legal, economic and administrative
history, but also (by the formulae employed in their dating)
contribute to our general knowledge of events. The Zeitschrift fürPapyrusforschung, edited by U. Wilcken, gives an account of progress
in this branch of study.

Modern Authorities.—Tillemont's Histoire des empereurs (6 vols.,
1690-1738), supplemented by his Mémoires pour servir à l'histoireecclésiastique, a laborious and erudite compilation, furnished Gibbon
with material for his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1788),
which has never been superseded as a history of the entire
imperial period, and has been rendered adequate for the purposes
of the modern reader by Professor J. B. Bury s edition (1897-1900).
The history of the empire has yet to be written in the light of recent
discoveries. Mommsen's fifth volume (Eng. tr., as Provinces of theRoman Empire, 1886) is not a narrative, but an account of Roman
culture in the various provinces. C. Merivale's History of theRomans under the Empire (8 vols., 1850-62, to Marcus Aurelius) is
literary rather than scientific. H. Schiller's Geschichte der römischenKaiserzeit (1883-88) is a useful handbook. For the later period
we have Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire (1889), beginning
from A.D. 395, and T. Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders (8 vols.,
1880-99), which tells the story of the barbaric invasions at great
length. The imperial constitution is described by Mommsen in the
second volume of his Staatsrecht (v. supra); divergent views will be
found in Herzog's Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung
(1884-91); the working of the imperial bureaucracy is
treated by O. Hirschfeld, Die römischen Verwaltungsbeamten (1905).
The Prosopographia Imperii Romani, compiled by Dessau and Klebs
(1897-98), is a mine of information, as is the new edition of Pauly's
Realencyklopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft (in progress).
Von Domaszewski's Geschichte der römischen Kaiser (2 vols., 1909)
is popularly written and gives no references to authorities. See
further the articles on individual emperors and provinces.

The history of the Roman commune as distinguished from
the papacy during the middle ages has yet to be written, and
only by the discovery of new documents can the difficulties of
the task be completely overcome. Although very different in
its origin, the Roman Republic gradually assumed the same
form as the other Italian communes, and with almost identical
institutions. But, owing to the special local conditions amid
which it arose, it maintained a distinct physiognomy and
character. The deserted Campagna surrounding the city
checked any notable increase of trade or industry, and prevented
the establishment of the gilds on the solid footing that elsewhere
made them the basis and support of the commune. There was
also the continual and oppressive influence of the empire, and,
above all, the presence of the papacy, which often appeared to
absorb the political vitality of the city. At such moments the
commune seemed annihilated, but it speedily revived and
reasserted itself. Consequently there are many apparent gaps
in its history, and we have often extreme difficulty in discovering
the invisible links connecting the visible fragments.

Even the aristocracy of Rome had a special stamp. In
the other republics, with the exception of Venice, it was feudal,
of German origin, and in perpetual conflict with the popular
and commercial elements which sought its destruction. The
history of municipal freedom in Italy lay in this struggle. But
the infiltration of Teutonic and feudal elements broke up the
ancient aristocracy of Rome, gave it a special character and
left it at the mercy of the people. Then the popes, by the
bestowal of lucrative offices, rich benefices and vast estates,
and, above all, by raising many nobles to the purple, introduced
new blood into the Roman aristocracy, and endued it with
increasing strength and vitality. Always divided, always
turbulent, this irrepressible body was a continual source of
discord and civil war, of permanent confusion and turmoil.
Amidst all these difficulties the commune struggled on, but never
succeeded in preserving a regular course or administration for
long. What with continual warfare, attacks on the Capitol
and consequent slaughter, pillage and incendiarism, it is no
wonder that so few original documents are left to illustrate the
history of the Roman Republic. Nor have chroniclers and historians
done much to supply this want, since, in treating of
Roman affairs, their attention is mainly devoted to the pope
and the emperor. Nevertheless, we will attempt to connect
in due order all the facts gleaned from former writers and published
records.

The removal of the seat of the empire to Constantinople
effected a radical change in the political situation of Rome;
nor was this change neutralized by the formation of the weak
Western empire soon to be shattered by the Germanic invasions.
But we still find Roman laws and institutions; and no sign
is yet manifest of the rise of a medieval municipality. The
earliest germ of this new type of municipality is seen during
the barbarian invasions. Of these we need only enumerate the
four most important—those of the Goths, Byzantines (who,
however, were not mere barbarians but civilized and corrupt),
Lombards and Franks. The Gothic rule merely superimposed
upon the Roman social order a Teutonic stratum, that never
The Goths.
penetrated beneath its surface. The Goths always
remained a conquering army; according to the
German custom, they took possession of one-third of
the vanquished territory, but, while forbidding the Romans
to bear arms, left their local administration intact. The senate,
the curiae, the principal magistrates, both provincial and
municipal, the prefect of the city, and the Roman judges
enforcing the enactments of the Roman law, were all preserved.
Already, under the empire, the civil power had been separated
from the military, and this separation was maintained. Hence
there was no visible change in the constitution of the state.
Only, now there were conquered and conquerors. All real and
effective power was on the side of brute force, and the Goths
alone bore arms. In every province they had their comites,
or heads of the army, who had judicial power over their countrymen,
especially in criminal cases. Here, then, was a combination
of civil and military jurisdiction altogether contrary to
Roman ideas. Nor can it be denied that the comites, as chiefs
of the armed force, necessarily exerted a direct or indirect
influence on the civil and administrative power of the provinces,
and especially upon the collection of the imposts. The civil
arm, being virtually subordinate to the military, suffered unavoidable
change. Notwithstanding the praise lavished on
Theodoric, the kingdom founded by him in Italy had no solid
basis. It was composed of two nations differing in race and
traditions and even in religion, since the Goths were Arians and
the Romans Catholics. The latter were sunk in degeneracy
and corruption; their institutions were old and decrepit. It
was necessary to infuse new life into the worn-out body. This
was difficult, perhaps impossible; and at any rate Theodoric
never attempted the task. Little wonder then if the Gothic
kingdom succumbed to the Byzantine armies from
Constantinople.

The wars of Belisarius and Narses against the Goths lasted
twenty years (535-55 A.D.), caused terrible slaughter and
The Byzantine rule.
devastation in Italy, and finally subjected her to
Constantinople. In place of a Gothic king she was
now ruled by a Greek patrician, afterwards entitled
the exarch, who had his seat of government at Ravenna
as lieutenant of the empire. In the chief provincial
cities the ruling counts were replaced by dukes,
subrule
ordinate to the exarch; and the smaller towns were governed
by military tribunes. Instead of dukes, we sometimes find
magistri militum, apparently of higher rank. The praefectuspraetorio of Italy, likewise a dependent of the exarch, was at
the head of the civil administration. The pragmatic sanction
(554), promulgating the Justinian code, again separated the
civil from the military power, which was no longer allowed to
intervene in the settlement of private disputes, and, by conferring
on the bishops the superintendence of and authority over the
provincial and municipal government, soon led to the increase
of the power of the church, which had already considerable
influence.

The new organization outwardly resembled that of the Goths:
one army had been replaced by another, the counts by dukes;
there was an exarch instead of a king; the civil and military
jurisdictions were more exactly defined. But the army was
not, like that of the Goths, a conquering nation in arms; it was
a Graeco-Roman army, and did not hold a third of the territory
which was now probably added to the possessions of the state
(fisc). The soldiery took its pay from Constantinople, whence
all instructions and appointments of superior officers likewise
proceeded. In Rome we find a magister militum at the head of
the troops. The Roman senate still existed, but was reduced
to a shadow. Theodoric had left it intact until he suspected it
of hostile designs and dealings with the Byzantines, but then
began to persecute it, as was proved by the wretched fate of
Boetius and Symmachus. Nevertheless the senate survived,
added the functions of a curia or municipal council to those of
a governmental assembly, and took part in the election of
the pope—already one of the chief affairs of Rome. So many
senators, however, were slaughtered during the Byzantine War
that it was commonly believed to be extinct. The pragmatic
sanction, conferring on senate and pope the superintendence of
weights and measures in Italy, might seem a convincing proof to
the contrary, although, in the general chaos, now that Rome
was a mere provincial city, constantly exposed to attack, we
may imagine to what the senate was reduced.

All Roman institutions were altered and decayed; but their
original features were still to be traced, and no heterogeneous
element had been introduced into them. The first dawn of a
completely new epoch can only be dated from the invasion of
The Lombards.
the Lombards (568-72). Their conquest of a large
portion of Italy was accompanied by the harshest
oppression. They abolished all ancient laws and
institutions, and not only seized a third of the land,
but reduced the inhabitants almost to slavery. But, in the
unsubdued parts of the country—namely, in Ravenna, Rome
and the maritime cities—a very different state of things prevailed.
The necessity for self-defence and the distance of the
empire, now too worn out to render any assistance, compelled
the inhabitants to depend solely on their own strength. Thus,
certain maritime cities, such as Naples, Amalfi, Pisa and Venice,
soon attained to a greater or less degree of liberty and
independence.

This is the moment in which ancient society seems to disappear
completely and a new one begins to rise. Ancient customs
disappear, Christian processions take the place of the ancient
games, ancient temples are transformed into churches and
dedicated to new saints. If Roman tradition in Italy can ever
be said to have been completely broken, this could only be
during the Longobard domination. It is certain, however, that
soon the elements of ancient culture began to revive once more.

A special state of things now arose in Rome. We behold
the rapid growth of the papal power and the continual increase
The popes. Gregory I.
of its moral and political influence. This had already
begun under Leo I., and been further promoted by the
pragmatic sanction. Not only the superintendence
but often the nomination of public functionaries and judges was
now in the hands of the popes. And the accession to St Peter's
chair of a man of real genius in the person of Gregory I.,
surnamed the Great, marked the beginning of a new
era. By force of individual character, as well as by historic
necessity, this pope became the most potent personage in Rome.
Power fell naturally into his hands; he was the true representative
of the city, the born defender of church and state. His
ecclesiastical authority, already great throughout Italy, was
specially great in the Roman diocese and in southern Italy.
The continual offerings of the faithful had previously endowed
the church with enormous possessions in the province of Rome,
in Sicily, Sardinia and other parts. The administration of all
this property soon assumed the shape of a small government
council in Rome. In the middle ages the owner of the land
was also master of the men who cultivated it, and exercised
political authority as well; these administrators therefore
protected and succoured the oppressed, settled disputes, nominated
judges and controlled the ecclesiastical authorities. The
use made by the pope of his revenues greatly contributed
to the increase of his moral and political authority. When
the city was besieged by the Lombards, and the emperor left
his army unpaid, Gregory supplied the required funds and
thus made resistance possible. And, when the defence could
be no longer maintained, he alone, by the weight of his personal
influence and the payment of large sums, induced the Lombards
to raise the siege. He negotiated in person with Agilulph,
and was recognized by him as the true representative of the
city. Thus Rome, after being five times taken and sacked
by the barbarians, was, on this occasion, saved by its bishop.
The exarch, although unable to give any help, protested against
the assumption of so much authority by the pope; but Gregory
was no usurper; his attitude was the natural result of events.
“For twenty-seven years”—so wrote this pontiff to the imperial
government of Constantinople—“we lived in terror of
the Longobards, nor can I say what sums we had to pay them.
There is an imperial treasurer with the army at Ravenna;
but here it is I who am treasurer. Likewise I have to provide
for the clergy, the poor and the people, and even to succour
the distress of other churches.”

It was at this moment that the new Roman commune began
to take shape and acquire increasing vigour owing to its
The Roman commune.
distance from the seat of the empire and its resistance
to the Lombard besiegers. Its special character
was now to be traced in the preponderance of the
military over the civil power. A Roman element had penetrated
into the army, which was already possessed of considerable
political importance. The prefect of Rome loses
authority and seems almost a nullity compared with the magistermilitum. Hardly anything is heard of the senate. “Quia
enim Senatus deest, populus interiit,” exclaims Gregory in a
moment of despair. The popes now make common cause with
the people against the Lombards on the one hand and the
emperor on the other. But they avoid an absolute rupture
with the empire, lest they should have to face the Lombard
power without any prospect of help. Later, when the growing
strength of the commune becomes menacing, they remain
faithful to the empire in order not to be at the mercy of the
people. It was a permanent feature of their policy never to
allow the complete independence of the city until they should
be its sole and absolute masters. But that time was still in
the future. Meanwhile pope and people joined in the defence
of their common interests.

This alliance was cemented by the religious disputes of the
East and the West. First came the Monothelite controversy
regarding the twofold nature of Christ. Later a long and
violent struggle ensued, in which the people of Rome and of
other Italian cities sided so vigorously with the popes that
John VI. (701-5) had to interpose in order to release the
exarch from captivity and prevent a definitive rupture with
the empire. Then (710-11) Ravenna revolted against the
emperor, organized its armed population under twelve flags,
and almost all the cities of the exarchate joined in a resistance
that was the first step towards the independence of the Italian
communes. A still fiercer religious quarrel then broke out
concerning images. Pope Gregory II. (715-31) opposed the
celebrated edict of the iconoclastic emperor Leo the Isaurian.
Venice and the Pentapolis took up arms in favour of the pope,
and elected dukes of their own without applying to the emperor.
Again public disorder rose to such a pitch that the pope was
obliged to check it lest it should go too far.

In the midst of these warlike tumults a new constitution,
almost a new state, was being set up in Rome. During the
The duchy of Rome.
conflict with Philippicus, the Monothelite and heretical
emperor who ascended the throne in 711, the LiberPontificalis makes the first mention of the duchy
of Rome (ducatus Romanae urbis), and we find the
people struggling to elect a duke of their own. In the early
days of the Byzantine rule the territory appertaining to the
city was no greater than under the Roman Empire. But,
partly through the weakness of the government of Constantinople,
and above all through the decomposition of the Italian
provinces under the Lombards, who destroyed all unity of
government in the peninsula, this dukedom was widely extended,
and its limits were always changing in accordance with
the course of events. It was watered by the Tiber, and stretched
into Tuscia to the right, starting from the mouth of the Marta,
by Tolfa and Bleda, and reaching as far as Orte. Viterbo
was a frontier city of the Lombards. On the left the duchy
extended into Latium as far as the Garigliano. It spread very
little to the north-east and was badly defended on that side,
inasmuch as the duchy of Spoleto reached to within fourteen
miles of the Salara gate. On the other side, towards Umbria,
the river Nera was its boundary line.

The constitution of the city now begins to show the results
of the conditions amid which it took shape. The separation
The first constitution of the commune.
of the civil from the military power has entirely
disappeared. This is proved by the fact that, after the
year 600, there is no further mention of the prefect.
His office still survived, but with a gradual change
of functions, until, in the 8th century, he once more
appears as president of a criminal tribunal. The constitution
of the duchy and of the new republic formed during
the wars with the Lombards and the exarch was substantially
of an aristocratic-military nature. At its head was the duke,
first appointed by the emperor, then by the pope and the
people, and, as his strength and influence grew with those of
the commune, he gradually became the most respected and
powerful personage in Rome. The duke inhabited the palace
of the Caesars on the Palatine Hill, and had both the civil and the
military power in his hands; he was at the head of the army,
which, being composed of the best citizens and highest nobility
of Rome, was a truly national force. This army was styled the
felicissimus or florens exercitus Romanus or also the militiaRomana. Its members never lost their citizen stamp; on the
contrary they formed the true body of the citizens. We find
mention of other duces in Rome, but these were probably other
leaders or superior officers of the army. Counts and tribunes
are found in the subject cities bound to furnish aid to the
capital. In fact during the pontificate of Sergius II. (844),
when the duchy was threatened by a Saracenic invasion, they
were requested to send troops to defend the coast, and as many
soldiers as possible to the city.

At that time the inhabitants of Rome were divided into four
principal classes—clergy, nobles, soldiers and simple citizens.
The different classes of society in Rome.
The nobles were divided into two categories, first the
genuine optimates, i.e. members of old and wealthy
families with large estates, and filling high, and often
hereditary, offices in the state, the church and the
army. These were styled proceres and primates. The
second category comprised landed proprietors, of moderate
means but exalted position, mentioned as nubiles by Gregory I.,
and constituting in fact a numerous petty nobility and the bulk
of the army. Next followed the citizens, i.e. the commercial
class, merchants and craftsmen, who, having as yet no fixed
organization and but little influence, were simply designated
as honesti cives. These, however, were quite distinct from the
plebeians, plebs, vulgus populi, viri humiles, who in their turn
ranked above bondsmen and slaves. The honesti cives did not
usually form part of the army, and were only enrolled in it in
seasons of emergency. Nevertheless the army was not only
national, but became increasingly democratic, so that in the
10th century it included every class of inhabitants except
churchmen and slaves. At that period we sometimes find the
whole people designated as the exercitus, those actually under
Scholae militum.
arms being distinguished as the militia exercitusRomani. This again was divided into bands or “numbers,”
i.e. regiments, and also, in a manner peculiar to Rome,
into scholae militum. These scholae were associations derived
from antiquity, gaining strength and becoming more general
in the middle ages as the central power of the state declined.
There were scholae of notaries, of church singers, and of nearly
every leading employment; there were scholae of foreigners
of diverse nationalities, of Franks, Lombards, Greeks, Saxons,
&c. Even the trades and crafts began to form scholae. These
were at first very feeble institutions, and only later gained
importance and became gilds. As early as the 8th century there
were scholae militum in the army, which was thus doubly
divided. But we have no precise definition of their functions.
They were de facto corporations with separate property, churches
and magistrates of their own. The latter were always optimates,
and guarded the interests of the army. But the real chiefs of
the bands or numeri were the duces or tribunes, and under the
Franks the latter became comites. These chiefs were styled
magnifici consules, optimates de militia, often too judices demilitia, since, as was the custom of the middle ages, they wielded
political and judicial as well as military authority. The title of
consul was now generally given to superior officers, whether
civil or military. The importance of the scholae militum
began to decline in the 10th century; towards the middle
of the 12th they disappeared altogether, and, according to
Felix Papencordt, were last mentioned in 1145. It is probable
that the scholae militum signified local divisions of the army,
corresponding with the city wards, which were twelve in number
during the 10th and 11th centuries, then increased to thirteen
and occasionally to fourteen. It is certain that from the beginning
the army was distributed under twelve flags; after the
scholae had disappeared, we find it classified in districts, which
were subdivided into companies. The division of cities into
quarters, sestieri or rioni, corresponding with that of the army,
and also with that of the municipal government, was the
common practice of Florence, Siena and almost all the Italian
communes. But, while usually losing importance as the gilds
acquired power, in Rome the insignificance of the gilds added
to the strength of the regioni or rioni, which not only became
part of the army but finally grasped the reins of government.
This was a special characteristic of the political constitution
of the Roman commune.

We now come to a question of weightier import for all desiring
to form a clear idea of the Roman government at that period.
The senate in the middle ages.
What had become of the senate? It had undoubtedly
lost its original character now that the empire was
extinct. But, after much learned discussion, historical
authorities are still divided upon the subject. Certain
Italian writers of the 18th century—Vendettini, for
example—asserted with scanty critical insight that the
Roman senate did not disappear in the middle ages. The
same opinion backed by much learned research was maintained
by the great German historian Savigny. And Leo, while
denying the persistence of the curia in Lombard Italy, adhered
to Savigny's views as regarded Rome. Papencordt did the
same, but held the Roman senate to be no more than a curia.
This judgment was vigorously contested, first by Hegel and
Giesebrecht, then by Gregorovius. These writers believe that
after the middle of the 6th century the senate had a merely
nominal existence. According to Gregorovius its last appearance
was in the year 579. After that date it is mentioned in no
documents, and the chroniclers are either equally silent or
merely allude to its decay and extinction. In the 8th century,
however, the terms senator, senatores, senatus again reappear.
We find letters addressed to Pippin, beginning thus: Omnissenatus atque universi populi generalitas. When Leo III. returned
from Germany he was met by tam proceres clericorumcum omnibus clericis, quamque optimates et senatus, cunctoquemilitia (see Anastasius, in Muratori, vol. iii. 198c). But it has
been noted that the senate was never found to act as a political
assembly; on occasions when it might have been mentioned
in that capacity we hear nothing of it, and only meet with it in
ceremonials and purely formal functions. Hence the conclusion
that the term senator was used in the sense of noble, senatus
of nobility, and no longer referred to an institution but only to a
class of the citizens. Even when we find that the emperor
Otto III. (who sought to revive all the ancient institutions of
Rome) addressed an edict to the “consuls and senate of Rome,”
and read that the laws of St Stephen were issued senatus decreto,
the learned Giesebrecht merely remarks that no important
changes in the Roman constitution are to be attributed to
the consuls and senate introduced by Otto III. Thus for the
next glimpse of the senate we must pass to the 12th century,
when it was not only reformed, as some writers believe, but
entirely reconstituted.

But in this case a serious difficulty remains to be disposed
of. Gregorovius firmly asserts that the nobles acquired great
power between the 7th and 10th centuries, not only filling the
highest military, judicial and ecclesiastical offices, “but also
directing the municipal government, presumably with the
prefect at their head.” He further adds: “Notwithstanding
the disappearance of the senate, it is difficult to suppose that
the city was without governing magistrates, or without a
council.” Thus, after the 7th century, the optimates at the
head of the army were also at the head of the citizens, and
“formed a communal council in the same manner in which
it was afterwards formed by the banderesi.”[521] Now, if the nobles
were called senatores and the nobility senatus, and if this body
of nobles met in council to administer the affairs of the republic,
there is no matter for dispute, inasmuch as all are agreed that
the original senate must have had a different character from
the senate of the middle ages. And, since the absence of all
mention of a prefect after the 7th century is not accepted as a
proof of his non-existence, and we find him reappear under
another form in the 8th century, so the silence as to the senate
after the year 579, the fresh mention of it in the 8th century,
and its reappearance in the 12th as a firmly reconstituted body
reasonably lead to the inference that, during that time, the
ancient senate had been gradually transformed into the new
council. Its meetings must have been held very irregularly,
and probably only in emergencies when important affairs had
to be discussed, previously to bringing them before the parliament
The consuls.
or general assembly of the people. Historians
are better agreed as to the significance of the term
consul. At first this was simply a title of honour
bestowed on superior magistrates, and retained that meaning
from the 7th to the 11th century, but then became—as in other
Italian cities—a special title of the chief officers of the state.

During this period the Roman constitution was very simple.
The duke, commanding the army, and the prefect, presiding
over the criminal court, were the chiefs of the republic; the
armed nobility constituted the forces, filled all of superior offices,
and occasionally met in a council called the senate, although it
had, as we have said, no resemblance to the senate of older times.
In moments of emergency a general parliament of the people
was convoked. This constitution differed little from that of
the other Italian communes, where, in the same way, we find all
the leading citizens under arms, a parliament, a council, and one
or more chiefs at the head of the government.

But Rome had an element that was lacking elsewhere. We
have already noted that, in the provinces, the administrators
of church lands were important personages, and exercised
during the middle ages, when there was no exact division of
power, both judicial and political functions. It was very
natural that the heads of this vast administration resident in
Rome should have a still higher standing, and in fact, from the
6th century, their power increased to such an extent that in the
times of the Franks they already formed a species of papal
Judices de clero.
cabinet with a share and sometimes a predominance
in the affairs of the republic. There were seven principal
administrators, but two of them held the chief power—the
primicerius notariorum and the secundicerius, i.e. the first
and under secretaries of state. When, on the constitution of
the new empire, these ministers were declared to be palatine
or imperial as well as papal officials, the primicerius and the
secundicerius were also in waiting on the emperor, who sat
in council with them when in Rome. Next came the arcarius,
or treasurer; the sacellarius, or cashier; the protoscriniarius,
who was at the head of the papal chancery; the primus defensor,
who was the advocate of the church and administered its
possessions. Seventh and last came the nomenclator, or
adminiculator, who pleaded the cause of widows, orphans and
paupers. There were also some other officials, such as the
vestiarius, the vicedominus or steward, the cubicularius or
major-domo, but these were of inferior importance. They were
ecclesiastics, but not bound to be in priest's orders. The first
seven were those specially known as proceres clericorum and
oftener still as judices de clero, since they speedily assumed
judicial functions and ranked among the chief judges of Rome.
But as ecclesiastics they did not give decisions in criminal
cases. Thus Rome had two tribunals, that of the judices declero, or ordinarii, presided over by the pope, and that of the
judices de militia, leaders of the army, dukes and tribunes, also
bearing the generic title of consuls. First appointed by the
exarch and then frequently by the pope, these decided both civil
and criminal cases. In the latter they were sole judges under the
presidency of the prefect.

The pope was thus at the head of a large administrative
body with judicial and civil powers that were continually on
The popes and the papal power.
the increase, and, in addition to his moral authority
over Christendom, was possessed of enormous revenues.
So in course of time he considered himself the real
representative of the Roman Republic. Gregory II.
(715-31) accepted in the name of the republic the submission
of other cities, and protested against the conquest
by the Lombards of those already belonging to Rome. He
seemed indeed to regard the territory of the duchy as the patrimony
of the church. The duke was always at the head of
the army, and, officially, was always held to be an imperial
magistrate. But the empire was now powerless in Italy.
Meanwhile the advance of the Lombards was becoming more
and more threatening; they seized Ravenna in 751, thus putting
an end to the exarchate, and next marched towards Rome,
which had only its own forces and the aid of neighbouring
cities to rely upon. To avoid being crushed by the brute
force of a foreign nation unfit to rule, and only capable of
oppression and pillage, it was necessary to make an energetic
stand.

Accordingly, the reigning pope, Stephen II. (752-57),
appealed to Pippin, king of the Franks, and concluded with that
The popes appeal to the Franks for aid.
monarch an alliance destined to inaugurate a new
epoch of the world's history. The pope consecrated
Pippin king of the Franks, and named him patriciusRomanorum. This title, as introduced by Constantine,
had no longer the ancient meaning, but now became a sign
of lofty social rank. When, however, it was afterwards conferred
on barbarian chieftains such as Odoacer and Theodoric, and then
on the representative of the Byzantine empire in Italy, it acquired
the meaning of a definite dignity or office. In fact, the
title was now given to Pippin as defender of the church, for
the pope styled him at the same time patricius Romanorum
and defensor or protector ecclesiae. And the king pledged
himself not only to defend the church but also to wrest
the exarchate and the Pentapolis from the Lombards and
give them to Rome, or rather to the pope, which came to
the same thing. This was considered as a restitution made
to the head of the church, who was also the representative of
the republic and the empire. And, to preserve the character
of a restitution, the famous “donation of Constantine” was
invented during this period (752-77). Pippin brought his
Donation of Pippin.
army to the rescue (754-55) and fulfilled his promise.
The pope accepted the donation in the name of St
Peter, and as the visible head of the church. Thus
in 755 central Italy broke its connexion with the empire and
became independent; thus was inaugurated the temporal
power of the papacy, the cause of so much subsequent warfare
and revolution in Rome.

Its first consequences were speedily seen. In 767 the death
of Paul I. was followed by a fierce revolt of the nobles under
Duke Toto (Theodoro) of Nepi, who by violent means raised
his brother Constantine to the chair of St Peter, although
Constantine was a layman and had first to be ordained. For
more than a year the new pontiif was a pliable tool in the hands
of Toto and of the nobles. But the genuine papal faction,
headed by a few judices de clero, asked the aid of the Lombards
and made a formidable resistance. Their adversaries were
defeated, tortured and put to death. Toto was treacherously
slain during a fight. The pope was blinded and left half dead
on the highway. Fresh and no less violent riots ensued, owing
to the public dread lest the new pope, Stephen III. (768-72),
elected by favour of the Lombards, should give them the city
in return. But Stephen went over to the Franks, whom he had
previously deserted, and his successor, Adrian I. (772-95),
likewise adhered to their cause, called the city to arms to resist
King Desiderius and his Lombard hordes, and besought the
assistance of Charlemagne. This monarch accordingly made a
Charlemagne in Italy.
descent into Italy in 773, and not only gained an
easy victory over Desiderius, but destroyed the
Lombard kingdom and seized the iron crown. Entering
Rome for the first time in 774, he confirmed and augmented
the donation of Pippin by the addition of the dukedom of
Spoleto. He returned several times to Italy and Rome, making
new conquests and fresh concessions to Adrian I., until the
death of the latter in 795.

The position of Rome and of the pope is now substantially
changed. Duke, prefect, militia and the people exist as
The papacy, the republic and the Franks.
heretofore, but are all subordinate to the head of
the church, who, by the donations of Pippin and
Charlemagne, has been converted into a powerful
temporal sovereign. Henceforth all connexion with
Byzantium is broken off, but Rome is still the
mainspring of the empire, the Roman duchy its sole surviving
fragment in Italy, and the pope stands before the
world as representative of both. And, although it is difficult
to determine how this came about, the pope is now regarded
and regards himself as master of Rome. In the year 772 he
entrusts the vestiarius with judicial powers over the laity,
ecclesiastics, freemen and slaves nostrae Romanae reipublicae.
He writes to Charlemagne that he has issued orders for the
burning of the Greek ships employed in the slave trade,
“in our city of Civita Vecchia” (Centumcellae), and he always
speaks of Rome and the Romans as “our city,” “our republic,”
“our people.” The donations of Pippin and Charlemagne are
restitutions made to St Peter, the holy church and the republic
at the same time. It is true that Charlemagne held
the supreme power, had an immensely increased authority and
actively fulfilled his duties as patricius. But his power was
only occasionally exercised in Rome; it was the result of services
rendered to the church, and of the church's continual
need of his help; it was, as it were, the power of a mighty and
indispensable ally. The pope, however, was most tenacious of
his own authority in Rome, made vigorous protest whenever
rebels fled to Charlemagne or appealed to that monarch's
arbitration, and contested the supremacy of the imperial
officials in Rome. Yet the pope was no absolute sovereign,
nor, in the modern sense of the term, did any then exist. He
asserted supremacy over many lands which continually rebelled
against him, and which, for want of an army of his own, he was
unable to reduce to obedience without others' help. Neither
did the republic acknowledge him as its head. It profited by
the growing power of the pope, could not exist without him,
respected his moral authority, but considered that he usurped
undue power in Rome. This was specially the feeling of the
nobles, who had hitherto held the chief authority in the republic,
and, being still the leaders of the army, were by no means
willing to relinquish it. The Roman nobles were very different
from other aristocratic bodies elsewhere. They were not as
they pretended, descendants of the Camilli and the Scipios,
but neither were they a feudal aristocracy, inasmuch as the
Teutonic element had as yet made small way among them.
They were a mixture of different elements, national and foreign,
formed by the special conditions of Rome. Their power was
chiefly derived from the high offices and large grants of money
and land conferred on them by the popes; but, as no dynasty
existed, they could not be dynastic. Every pope aggrandized
his own kindred and friends, and these were the natural and
often open adversaries of the next pontiff and his favourites.
Thus the Roman nobility was powerful, divided, restless and
turbulent; it was continually plotting against the pope,
threatening not only his power, but even his life; it continually
appealed to the people for assistance, stirred the militia to
revolt and rendered government an impossibility. Hence,
notwithstanding his immense moral authority, the pope was
the effective head neither of the aristocracy, the army nor of
the as yet unorganized lower classes. The lord of vast but
often insubordinate territories, the recognized master of a
capital city torn by internecine feud and plots against himself,
he needed the support of an effective force for his own preservation
and the maintenance of the authority proffered him from
all quarters. Hence the necessity of creating an empire of the
West, after having snapped every link with that of the East.
Thus the history of Rome is still, as in the past, a history of
continual strife between pope, emperor and republic; and the
city, while imbibing strength from all three, keeps them in
confusion.

Leo III. (796-816) further strengthened the ties between
Charlemagne and the church by sending the former a letter
with the keys of the shrine of St Peter and the banner of
Rome. Charlemagne had already joined to his office of
patrician the function of high justice. The new symbols now
sent constituted him miles of Rome and general of the church.
The pope urged him to despatch an envoy to receive the oath
of fealty, thus placing himself, the representative of the republic,
in the subordinate position of one of the bishops who had
received the immunities of counts. And all these arrangements
took place without the slightest reference to the senate, the
army or the people. Much resentment was felt, especially
by the nobles, and a revolution ensued headed by the
primicerius Paschalis and the secundicerius Campulus, and
backed by all who wished to liberate the city from the papal
rule. During a solemn procession the pope was attacked and
barbarously maltreated by his assailants, who tried to tear
out his eyes and tongue (799). He was thrown into prison,
escaped and overtook Charlemagne at Paderborn, and
returned guarded by ten of the monarch's envoys, who condemned
to death the leaders of the revolt, reserving, however,
to their sovereign the right of final judgment. Charlemagne
arrived in December 800, and as high justice assembled a
tribunal of the clergy, nobles, citizens and Franks; he pronounced
Leo to be innocent, and confirmed the capital sentence
passed on the rebels. But through the intercession of the
pope, who dreaded the wrath of the nobles, this was presently
Charlemagne crowned emperor.
commuted into perpetual exile. And finally on
Christmas day, in St Peter's, before an assemblage
of Roman and Frankish lords, the clergy and the
people, the pontiff placed the imperial crown on
Charlemagne's head and all proclaimed him emperor.

Thus the new emperor was elected by the Romans and
consecrated by the pope. But he was their real master and
supreme judge. The pope existed only by his will, since he
alone supplied the means for the maintenance of the temporal
power, and already pretended to the right of controlling the
papal elections. Yet Charlemagne was not sovereign of
Rome; he possessed scarcely any regalia there, and was not
in command of the army; he mainly represented a principle,
but this principle was the law which is the basis of the state.
The pope still nominated the Roman judges, but the emperor
or his missi presided over them, together with those of the
pope, and his decision was appealed to in last resort. During
the Carolingian times no mention is found of the prefect, and
it would seem that his office was filled by the imperial missus,
or legate, the judices de clero and judices de militia. The power
of the pope was now entangled with that of the republic on
the one hand and that of the empire on the other. The consequent
confusion of sacred and secular functions naturally
led to infinite complications and disputes.

The death of Charlemagne in 814 was the signal for a fresh
conspiracy of the nobles against the pope, who, discovering
their design, instantly put the ringleaders to death, and was
severely blamed by Louis for this violation of the imperial
prerogative. While the matter was under discussion the
nobles broke out in fiercer tumults, both in Rome and the
Campagna. At last, in 824, the emperor Lothair came to re-establish
order in Rome, and proclaimed a new and noteworthy
constitution, to which Pope Eugenius II. (824-27)
gave his oath of adherence. By this the partnership of pope
and emperor in the temporal rule of Rome and the states
of the church was again confirmed. The more direct power
appertained to the pope; the supreme authority, presidency
of the tribunals, and final judgment on appeal to the emperor.
The new constitution also established the right of contending
parties to select either the Roman or the Teutonic code for
the settlement of their disputes. During the Carolingian
period it is not surprising that the commune should have been,
as it were, absorbed by the church and the empire. In fact,
it is scarcely mentioned in history throughout that time.
Decline of the empire.
And when, no longer sustained by the genius of its
founder, the Frankish empire began to show signs
of dissolution, the popes, finding their power thereby
strengthened, began to assume many of the imperial attributes.
Soon, however, as a natural consequence of the
loss of the main support of the papacy, the nobles regained
vigour and were once more masters of the city. Teutonic and
feudal elements had now largely penetrated into their organization.
The system of granting lands, and even churches and
convents, as benefices according to feudal forms, became more
and more general. It was vain for the popes to offer opposition,
and they ended by yielding to the current. The fall of the
Frankish empire left all Italy a prey to anarchy, and torn by
the faction fights of Berengar of Friuli and Guido of Spoleto,
the rival claimants to the crowns of Italy and the empire. The
Saracens were advancing from the south, the Huns from
the north; the popes had lost all power; and in the midst
of this frightful chaos a way was opened for the rise of the
republics. Anarchy was at its climax in Rome, but the laity
began to overpower the clergy to such an extent that the
judices de militia prevailed over the judices de clero. For a.
long time no imperial missi or legates had been seen, and the
papacy was incredibly lowered. The election of the popes
had positively fallen into the hands of certain beautiful women
notorious for their evil life and depravity. The
Renewed power of the aristocracy.
aristocracy alone gained strength; now freed from
the domination of the emperor, it continually wrested
fresh privileges from the impotent pontiffs, and
became organized as the ruling force of the republic.
Gregorovius, notwithstanding his denial of the continuation of
the senate after the 6th century, is obliged to acknowledge
that it appeared to have returned to life in the power of this
new baronage. And, although this body was now permeated
with the feudal principle, it did not discard its ancient traditions.
The nobles claimed to be the main source of the empire; they
wished to regain the dignity and office of patricius, and to
make it, if possible, hereditary in some of their families.
Nothing is known of their system of organization, but it seems
that they elected a chief bearing the title of consul, senator,
princeps Romanorum, who was officially recognized by the
pope, as a patricius presided over the tribunals, and was the
head of the commune.

Theophylact was one of the first to assume this dignity. His
wife Theodora, known as the senatrix, was one of the women
dominating Rome by force of their charms and licentiousness.
She was supposed to be the concubine of Pope John X.
(914-28), whose election was due to her influence. Her
daughter Marozia, in all things her worthy rival, was married to
Alberic, a foreign mercenary, of uncertain birth who rose to a
position of great influence, and, although an alien, played a
leading part in the affairs of the city. He helped to increase
the power of Theophylact, who seemingly shared the rule of the
city with the pope. In the bloody war that had to be waged
against the Saracens of southern Italy, and at the defeat of the
latter on the Garigliano (916), Theophylact and Alberic were
the Roman leaders, and distinguished themselves by their
valour. They disappeared from the scene after this victory,
but Marozia retained her power, and bore a son, Alberic, who
was destined to greater deeds. The pope found himself caught
in this woman's toils, and struggled to escape, but Marozia,
gaining fresh influence by her marriage with Hugo, margrave
of Tuscany, imprisoned the pontiff himself in the castle of St
Angelo (928). This fortress was the property of Marozia and
the basis of her strength. The unfortunate John died within
its walls. Raised to the chair by Theodora, he was deposed
and killed by her daughter. The authority of the latter reached
its culminating point in 931, when she succeeded in placing her
son John XI. on the papal throne. On the death of her second
husband she espoused Hugh of Provence, the same who in 928
had seized the iron crown at Pavia, and now aspired to the
empire. Dissolute, ambitious and despotic, he came to Rome
in 932, and, leaving his army outside the walls, entered the
castle of St Angelo with his knights, instantly began to play
the tyrant, and gave a blow to Alberic his stepson, who detested
The revolt of the Romans. Alberic at the head of the commune.
him as a foreign intruder. This blow proved the
cause of a memorable revolution; for Alberic rushed
from the castle and harangued the people, crying that
the time was come to shake off the tyrannous yoke of
a woman and of barbarians who were once the slaves
of Rome. Then, putting himself at the head of the
populace, he closed the city gates to prevent Hugh's
troops from coming to the rescue, and attacked the
castle. The king fled; Marozia was imprisoned, Alberic proclaimed
lord of the Romans, and the pope confined to the
Lateran in the custody of his own brother. Rome was again an
independent state, a republic of nobles. Rid of the temporal
dominion of emperor and pope, and having expelled the
foreigners with great energy and courage, it chose Alberic for its
chief with the title of princeps atque omnium Romanorum senator.
The tendency of the Roman Republic to elect a supreme authority,
first manifested in the case of Theophylact, was repeated
in those of Alberic, Brancaleone, Crescenzio, Cola di Rienzo
and others. One of the many causes of this tendency maybe
traced to the conception of the new empire of which Rome was
the original and enduring fountainhead. As Rome had once
transferred the empire from Byzantium to the Franks, so Rome
was surely entitled to reclaim it. The imperial authority was
represented by the office of patrician, now virtually assumed by
Alberic. That he gave the name of Octavian to his son is an
additional proof of this fact. In the Eternal City the medieval
political idea has always the aspect of a resurrection or transformation
of classic antiquity. This is another characteristic
of the history of the Roman commune.

Alberic's strength was due to his connexion with the nobility,
to his father's valiant service against the Saracens at the battle
of Garigliano, and to the militia under his command, on which
everything depended amid the internal and external dangers
now threatening the new state. As yet no genuine municipal
constitution was possible in Rome, where neither the people
nor the wealthy burghers engaged in industry and commerce
had any fixed organization. All was in the hands of the nobles,
and Alberic, as their chief, frequently convened them in council,
although obliged to use pressure to keep them united and avoid
falling a prey to their disputes. Hence the whole power was
concentrated in his grasp; he was at the head of the tribunals
as well as of the army. The judices de clero and judices demilitia still existed, but no longer met in the Lateran or the
Vatican, under the presidency of emperor and pope or their
missi. Alberic himself was their president; and, a still more
significant fact, their sittings were often held in his private
dwelling. There is no longer any mention of prefect or patricius.
The papal coinage was inscribed with Alberic's name instead of
the emperor's. His chief attention was given to the militia,
which was still arranged in scholae, and it is highly probable that
he was the author of the new division of the city into twelve
regions, with a corresponding classification of the army in as
many regiments under twelve flags and twelve banderesi, one
for every region. The organization of the scholae could not
have been very dissimilar, but doubtless Alberic had some
important motive for altering the old method of classification.
By means of the armed regions he included the people in the
forces. It is certain that after his time we find the army much
changed and far more democratic. It was only natural that so
excellent a statesman should seek the aid of the popular element
as a defence against the arrogance of the nobles, and it was
requisite to reinforce the army in order to be prepared for the
attacks threatened from abroad. This change effected, Alberic
felt prepared for the worst, and began to rule with energy,
moderation and justice. His contemporaries award him high
praise, and he seems to have been exempt from the vices of his
mother and grandmother.

In 933 Hugh made his first attack upon the city, and was
repulsed. A second attempt in 936 proved still more unfortunate,
for his army was decimated by a pestilence. Thoroughly
disheartened, he not only made peace, but gave his daughter in
marriage to Alberic, thus satisfying the latter's desire to ally
himself with a royal house. But this union led to no conciliation
with Hugh. For Alberic, finding his power increased, marched
at the head of his troops to consolidate his rule in the Campagna
and the Sabine land. On the death of his brother, Pope
John XI., in 936, he controlled the election of several successive
popes, quelled a conspiracy formed against him by the clergy
and certain nobles instigated by Hugh, and brilliantly repulsed,
in 941, another attack by that potentate. At last, however,
this inveterate foe withdrew from Rome, being summoned to the
north by the victories of his rival Berengarius. But Alberic,
after procuring the election of various popes who were docile
instruments of his will, experienced a check when Agapetus II.
(946-55), a man of firmness and resource, was raised to the
papal throne. The fortunes of Berengarius were now in the
ascendant. In 950 he had seized the iron crown, and ruled
in the Pentapolis and the exarchate. This being singularly
painful to the pope, he proceeded to make alliance with all
those enemies of Berengarius preferring a distant emperor to a
neighbouring and effective sovereign, with the Roman nobles
who were discontented with Alberic, and with all who foresaw
danger, even to Rome, from the extended power of Berengarius.
And Agapetus recurred to the old papal policy, by making
appeal to Otto I., whose rule in Germany was distinguished by a
prestige almost comparable with that of Charlemagne.

Otto immediately responded to the appeal and descended into
Italy; but his envoys were indignantly repulsed by Alberic,
and, being prudent as well as firm, he decided to wait a more
opportune moment for the accomplishment of his designs.
Meanwhile Alberic died in 954, and the curtain fell on the first
great drama of the Roman Republic. He had reigned for
twenty-two years with justice, energy and prudence; he had
repelled foreign invaders, maintained order and authority. He
seems, however, to have realized that the aspect of affairs was
about to change, that the work he had accomplished would be
exposed to new dangers. These dangers, in fact, had already
begun with the accession of an enterprising pope to the Holy
See. The name of Octavian given by Alberic to his son leads
to the inference that he meant to make his power hereditary.
But, suddenly, he began to educate this son for the priesthood,
and, assembling the nobles in St Peter's shortly before his
death, he made them swear to elect Octavian as pope on the
decease of Agapetus II. They kept their word, for in this way
they freed themselves from a ruler. Possibly Alberic trusted
that both offices might be united, and that his son would be
head of the state as well as the church. But the nobles knew
this to be a delusion, especially in the case of a nature such as
Octavian's. The lad was sixteen years old when his father
died, received princely honours until the death of Agapetus,
and was then elected pope with the name of John XII. He
had inherited the ungoverned passions of his grandmother
Marozia and great-grandmother Theodora, but without their
intelligence and cunning. His palace was the scene of the most
scandalous licence, while his public acts were those of a baby
tyrant. He conferred a bishopric on a child of ten, consecrated
a deacon in a stable, invoked Venus and Jupiter in his games,
and drank to the devil's health. He desired to be both pope
and prince, but utterly failed to be either. Before long,
realizing the impossibility of holding in check Berengarius,
who still ruled over the exarchate, he sought in 960 the aid of
Otto I., and promised him the imperial crown. Thus the new
ruler was summoned by the son of the man by whom he had
Otto I. crowned emperor.
been repulsed. Otto vowed to defend the church, to
restore her territories, to refrain from usurping the
power of the pope or the republic, and was crowned
on the 2nd of February 962 with unheard-of pomp and display.

Accordingly, after being extinct for thirty-seven years, the
empire was revived under different but no less difficult conditions.
The politico-religious unity founded by Charlemagne
had been dissolved, partly on account of the heterogeneous
elements of which it was composed, and partly because other
nations were in course of formation. Now too the feudal
system was converting the officers of the empire into independent
princes, and the new spirit of communal liberty was
giving freedom to the cities. Otto once more united the empire
and the church, Italy and Germany, in order to combat these
new foes. But the difficulties of the enterprise at once came
to light. John XII., finding a master in the protector he had
invoked, now joined the discontented nobles who were conspiring
with Berengarius against the emperor. But the latter hastened
to Rome in November 963, assembled the clergy, nobles and
heads of the people, and made them take an oath never again
to elect a pope without his consent and that of his son. He
also convoked a synod presided over by himself in St Peter's,
which judged, condemned and deposed Pope John and elected
Leo VIII. (863-65), a Roman noble, in his stead. All this
was done at the direct bidding of the emperor, who thus deprived
the Romans of their most valued privilege, the right of choosing
Rising importance of the people.
their own pope. But the people had now risen to
considerable importance, and, for the first time, we
find it officially represented in the synod by the
plebeian Pietro, surnamed Imperiola, together with
the leaders of the militia, which had also become a
popular institution since Alberic's reign. It was no longer easy
to keep the lower orders in subjection, and by their junction
with the malcontent nobles they formed a very respectable
force. On the 3rd of January 964 they sounded the battle-peal
and attacked the Vatican, where the emperor was lodged.
The German knights repulsed them with much slaughter, and
this bloodshed proved the beginning of an endless feud. Otto
departed in February, and John XII., as the chosen pope of
the Romans, returned with an army of followers and compelled
the defenceless Leo VIII. to seek safety in flight. Soon
afterwards Leo was deposed and excommunicated by a new
synod, and many of his adherents were cruelly murdered.
But on the 14th of May 964 John suddenly expired; the
Romans, amid violent struggles and tumults, resumed their
rights, elected Benedict V., and procured his consecration in
spite of the emperor's veto. Otto now appeared at the head
of an army, committed fresh slaughter, besieged the city, reduced
it by famine, and, after holding a council which deposed
Benedict and sent him a prisoner to Hamburg, restored
Leo VIII. to the papal throne.

But, although the emperor thus disposed of the papacy at
his will, his arbitrary exercise of power roused a long and
Another revolution.
obstinate resistance, which had no slight effect upon
the history of the commune. Leo VIII. died in 965,
and the imperial party elected John XIII. (965-72).
Upon this the nobles of the national party joined the
people and there was a general revolt. The nobles were led
by Pietro, prefect of Rome. As we have noted, this office
seemed to be extinct during the Carolingian rule, but we
again meet with it in 955, after an interval of a century and a
half. The leaders of the people were twelve decarconi, a term
of unknown derivation, but probably indicating chiefs of the
twelve regions (dodecarchi, dodecarconi, decarconi). The new
pope was seized and confined, first in the castle of St Angelo,
then in a fortress in the Campagna. But the emperor quickly
marched an army against Rome, and this sufficed to produce
a reaction which recalled the pope (November 966), sent the
prefect into exile, and put several of the rebellious nobles to
death. And shortly after the emperor sacked the city. Many
Romans were exiled, some tortured, others, including the twelve
decarconi, killed. John XIII. died in 972 and Otto in 973.

All these events clearly prove how great a change had now
taken place in the conditions of Rome. The people (plebs)
had made its appearance upon the stage; the army had become
democratic; the twelve regions were regularly organized under
leaders. Opposed to them stood the nobles, headed by the
prefect, also a noble, precisely as in Florence the nobles and
the podestà were later opposed to the gilds and the people.
So far, it is true, nobles and people had made common cause
in Rome; but this harmony was soon to be interrupted. The
feudal spirit had made its way among the Roman aristocrats,
had split them into two parties and diminished their strength.
It was now destined to spread, and, as it was always vigorously
detested and opposed by the people elsewhere in Italy, so the
same consequence was inevitable in Rome. Another notable
Judices dativi.
change, and a subject of unending controversy, had
also occurred in the administration of justice. So
far there were the judices de clero, also known as
ordinary or palatine judges, and the judices de militia, also
styled consules or duces. These judges generally formed a
court of seven, three being de clero, four de militia, or vice versa,
under the presidency of the papal or imperial missi. In
criminal cases the judices de militia had the prefect or the
imperial missus for their president. But there was a third
order of judges called pedanei, a consulibus creati. It seems
clear that the duces, being distributi per judicatus, found themselves
isolated in the provinces, and to obtain assistance nominated
these pedanei, who were legal experts. In Rome, with
its courts of law, they were less needed, but possibly in those
sections of the city where cases of minor importance were
submitted to a single magistrate reference was made to the
pedanei. But many changes were made under the Franks,
and when the edict of Lothair (824) granted free choice of
either the Roman or Germanic law, and the duces were replaced
by comites and gastaldiones, chiefly of German origin, the use
of legal experts became increasingly necessary. And the
custom of employing them was the more easily diffused by
being already common among the Franks, whose scabini were
legal experts acting as judges, though not qualified to pass
sentence. Thus the pedanei multiplied, came to resemble the
scabini, and were designated judices dativi (a magistratu dati)
or simply dativi. These were to be found in the exarchate in
838, but not in Rome until 961, when the judices de militia
had ceased to exist. The great progress of the German legal
procedure may then have contributed to the formation of the
new office.

Meanwhile Pope John XIII. had been succeeded by Benedict
VI. (973-74) and Otto I. by his son Otto II., a youth
of eighteen married to the Byzantine princess Theophano.
Thereupon the Romans, who had supported the election of
another pope, and were in no awe of the new emperor, rose to
arms under the command of Crescenzio, a rich and powerful
noble. They not only seized Benedict VI. by force, but
strangled him in the castle of St Angelo. The national and
imperial parties then elected several popes who were either
exiled or persecuted, and one of them was said to be murdered.
In 985 John XV. was elected (985-96). During this turmoil,
Giovanni Crescenzio.
the national party, composed of nobles and people,
led by Giovanni Crescenzio, son of the other Crescenzio
mentioned above, had taken complete possession
of the government. This Crescenzio assumed the title of
patrician, and sought to imitate Alberic, although far his
inferior in capacity. Fortunately for him, the reigning pope
was a detested tyrant, and the emperor a child entirely guided
by his mother. But the new emperor Otto III. was backed
by a powerful party, and on coming to Rome in 996 was able,
although only aged fifteen, to quell the rebellion, oust Crescenzio
from public life, and elect as successor to John XV. his own
cousin, Pope Gregory V. (996-99). But this first German
pope surrounded himself with compatriots, and by raising them
to lofty posts even in the tribunals excited a revolt that drove
him from the throne (29th September 999). Crescenzio, being
master of the castle of St Angelo, resumed the title of patrician
or consul of the Romans, expelled the German judges, reconstituted
the government, prepared his troops for defence, and
created a new pope. But the following year Otto III. came
to Rome, and his party opened the gates to him. Although
deserted by nearly all his adherents, Crescenzio held the castle
valiantly against its besiegers. At last, on the 29th of April
998, he was forced to make terms, and the imperialists, violating
their pledges, first put him to torture and then hurled him
from the battlements. Gregory V. dying shortly after these
events, Sylvester II., another native of southern France, who
had been tutor to the emperor Otto III., was raised to the
papacy (999-1003).

Thus Otto III. was enabled to establish his mastery of Rome.
But, as the son of a Greek mother, trained amid Greek
Otto III.
influences, his fantastic and contradictory nature seemed
only to grasp the void. He wished to reconstitute
a Romano-Byzantine empire with Rome for his capital. His
discourse always turned on the ancient republic, on consuls
and senate, on the might and grandeur of the Roman people;
and his edicts were addressed to the senate and the people.
The senate is now constantly mentioned, and its heads bear
the title of consuls. The emperor also gave renewed honour
to the title of patrician, surrounded himself with officials bearing
Greek and Roman designations, and raised the prestige of the
prefect, who, having now almost the functions of an imperial
vicar, bore the eagle and the sword as his insignia. Nevertheless
Otto III. was thoroughly German, and during his reign
all Germanic institutions made progress in Rome. This was
particularly the case with feudalism, and Sylvester II. was
the first pope to treat it with favour. Many families of real
feudal barons now arose. The Crescenzii held sway in the
Sabine hills, and Praeneste and Tusculum were great centres
of feudalism in the 11th century. The system of feudal benefices
was recognized by the church, which made grants of lands,
cities and provinces in the feudal manner. The bishops, like
feudal barons, became actual counts. And, in consequence of
these changes, when the emperor, as head of the feudal system,
seeks to impose his will upon the church (which has also become
feudal) and control the papal elections, he is met by the great
question of the investitures, a question destined to disturb
the whole world. Meanwhile the Roman barons were growing
more and more powerful, and were neither submissive nor
faithful to the emperor. On the contrary, they resented his
attitude as a master of Rome, and, when he subjected Tivoli
to the Holy See, attacked both him and the pope with so much
vigour as to put both to flight (16th February 1001). Thereupon
Rome again became a republic, headed by Gregory of
Tusculum, a man of a powerful family claiming descent from
Alberic.

By the emperor's death in January 1002 the race of the
Ottos became extinct, the papacy began to decline, as at the
end of the Carolingian period, and the nobles, divided into
an imperial and a national party, were again predominant.
They reserved to themselves the office of patrician, and, electing
popes from their own ranks, obtained enlarged privileges and
power. At the time when Ardoin, marquis of Ivrea, profiting
by the extinction of the Ottos and the anarchy of Germany,
was stirring Italy in the vain hope of constituting a national
The second Giovanni Crescenzio.
kingdom, the Roman Republic was being consolidated
under another Giovanni Crescenzio, of the national
faction. He was now elected patrician; one of
his kinsmen was invested with the office of prefect,
and the new pope John XVIII. (1003-9) was
one of his creatures. Although the power of Henry of
Bavaria was then gaining ascendancy in Germany, and giving
strength to the imperialist nobles, Crescenzio still remained
supreme ruler of the city and the Campagna. Surrounded by
his judges, the senators and his kinsman the prefect, he
continued to dispense justice in his own palace until his death
in 1012, after ten years' rule. And, Pope Sergius IV. having
died the same year, the counts of Tusculum compassed the
election of Benedict VIII. (1012-24), one of their own kin.
This pope expelled the Crescenzii, changed the prefect and
reserved the title of patrician for Henry II., whom he consecrated
emperor on the 14th February 1014. A second
Alberic, bearing the title of “eminentissimus consul et dux,”
was now at the head of the republic and dispensed placita in
the palace of his great ancestor, from whom the counts of
Tusculum were also descended.

The new emperor endeavoured to re-establish order in Rome,
and strengthen his own authority together with that of the
Henry II.
pope. But the nobles had in all things the upper
hand. They were regularly organized under leaders,
held meetings, asserted their right to nominate both pope
and emperor, and in fact often succeeded in so doing. Even
Henry II. himself was obliged to secure their votes before his
coronation. The terms senate and senator now recur still
more frequently in history. Nevertheless, Benedict VIII.
succeeded in placing his own brother, Romano, at the head
of the republic with the title of “consul, dux and senator,”
thus making him leader of the nobles, who met at his bidding,
and chief of the militia and the tribunals. The prefect still
retained his authority, and the emperor was by right supreme
judge. But, a violent revolt breaking out, the emperor only
stayed to suppress it and then went to Germany in disgust.
The pope, aided by his brother, conducted the government
with energy; he awed the party of Crescenzio, and waged
war against the Saracens in the south. But he died in 1024,
and in the same year Henry II. was succeeded by Conrad II.
There was now beheld a repetition of the same strange event
that had followed the death of Alberic, and with no less fatal
consequences. Benedict's brother Romano, head of the
republic, and still retaining office, was, although a layman,
elected pope. He took the name of John XIX. (1024-33),
and in 1027 conferred the imperial crown on Conrad the Salic,
who, abolishing the Lothairian edict of 824, decreed that
throughout Rome and its territory justice should be henceforth
administered solely by the Justinian code. Thus, notwithstanding
the spread of feudalism and Germanic procedure,
the Roman law triumphed through the irresistible force of the
national character, which was already manifested in many
other ways.

Meanwhile John XIX. was succeeded by his nephew,
Benedict IX. (1033-45), a lad of twelve, who placed his own
brother at the head of the republic. Thus church and state
assumed the aspect of hereditary possessions in the powerful
house of the counts of Tusculum. But the vices and excesses
of Benedict were so monstrous that the papacy sank to the
lowest depth of corruption; there followed a series of tumults
and reactionary attempts, and so many conflicting elections
that in 1045 three popes were struggling for the tiara in the
midst of scandal and anarchy. The streets and neighbourhood
of Rome swarmed with thieves and assassins; pilgrims were
plundered; citizens trembled for their lives; and a hundred
petty barons threatened the rival popes, who were obliged to
defend themselves by force. This state of things lasted until
Henry III. came to re-establish order. He appointed a synod
to depose the three popes, and then, with the consent of the
wearied, and anarchy-stricken Romans, assuming the right
of election, proposed a German, Clement II., who was consecrated
at Christmas 1046. Henry III. was then crowned,
and also took the title of patrician. Thus the emperor was
lord over church and state. This, however, stirred both
people and pope against him, and led to the terrible contest
of the investitures, although for the moment the Romans,
being exhausted by past calamities, seemed not only resigned
and to emancipate the church from all dependence
but contented.

In fact, the idea of reform and independence was already
germinating in the church and was soon to become tenacious
Hildebrand and the question of investiture.
and irresistible. Hildebrand was the prompter and
hero of this idea. He sought to abolish the simony
and concubinage of the priesthood, to give the papal
elections into the hands of the higher ecclesiastics,
and to emancipate the church from all dependence
on the empire. Henry III. procured the election of four
German popes in succession, and Hildebrand was always at
hand to inspire their actions and dominate them by his
strength of intellect and still greater strength of will. But
the fourth German pope, Victor II., died in 1057, and Henry III.
had been succeeded in 1056 by the young Henry IV. under
the regency of a weak woman, the empress Agnes. Hildebrand
seized this favourable moment for trying his strength and
procured the election of Stephen IX. (1057-58), a candidate
he had long had in view. Stephen, however, died in 1058;
the nobles instantly rose in rebellion; and Gregory of Tusculum,
who had assumed the patriciate, caused an incapable cousin
to be named pope (Benedict X.). Upon this Hildebrand
postponed his design of maintaining the papacy by the help
of Italian potentates and had recourse to the empress. In a
synod held at Siena with her consent Benedict was deposed
and Nicholas II. (1059-61) elected in his stead. This pope
entered Rome escorted by the troops of Godfrey of Tuscany,
and, when also assured of help from Naples, assembled a
council of one hundred and thirteen bishops (1059), who condemned
the deposed pontiff and renewed the prohibition of
simony and concubinage among the priesthood. Finally
Nicholas instituted the college of cardinals, entrusting it with
the election of the pope, who was in future to be chosen from
its ranks. The assent of the clergy and people was left purely
formal. The decree also contained the proviso—“saving the
honour and reverence due to the emperor”; but this too was
an empty expression.

The new decree was a master-stroke of Hildebrand's genius,
for by means of it he placed the papal election in the hands
of a genuine ecclesiastical senate and gave a monarchical form
to the church. Backed by the Normans who were in Rome,
and whose commander, Richard of Capua, did not scruple to
strike off the heads of many recalcitrant nobles, Hildebrand
and the pope could now pursue their work of reform. Nevertheless
the nobles again revolted on the death of Nicholas II.
in 1061, and declared their purpose of restoring to Henry IV.
the patriciate and right of election; but Hildebrand, by
speedily convoking the cardinals, procured the election of
Alexander II. (1061-73). This pope, although friendly to
the empire, did not await the imperial sanction, but, protected
by the Romans, at once entered the Lateran and put some
other riotous nobles to death. The German bishops, however,
elected Honorius II., who had the support of the barons. Thus
the city was split into two camps and a deadly civil war ensued,
terminating, despite the vigorous resistance of the nobility,
in the defeat of Honorius II. But the nobles persevered in
the contest and were the real masters of Rome. By conferring
the patriciate on the emperor, as their feudal chief, they
hoped to organize themselves under the prefect, who now,
with greatly increased authority, presided over both the
civil and criminal courts in the absence of the pope's
representative. In a general assembly the Romans elected
their prefect, whose investiture was granted by the emperor,
while the pope elected another. Thus disorder was brought
to a climax.

Alexander died on the 21st April 1073, and thereupon Hildebrand
was at last raised to the chair as pope Gregory VII.
Gregory VII.
(1073-85). He reconfirmed his predecessors' decrees,
dismissed all simoniacal and non-celibate priests,
and then in a second council (1075) forbade the clergy
to receive investiture at the hands of laymen. No bishop
nor abbot was again to accept ring or crozier from king or
emperor. Now, as ecclesiastical dignities included the possession
of extensive benefices, privileges and feudal rights, this decree
gave rise to tremendous dispute and to fierce contest between
the empire and the church. The nobles took a very decided
part in the struggle. With Cenci, their former prefect, at their
head, they rose in revolt, assailed the pope on Christmas day
1075, and threw him into prison. But their fear of the popular
wrath compelled his speedy release; and he then decreed the
excommunication and deposition of the emperor who had
declared him deposed. That monarch afterwards made
submission to Gregory at Canossa (1077), but, again turning
against him, was again excommunicated. And in 1081 he
returned to Italy bringing the antipope Clement III., and
besieged Rome for forty days. Assembling the nobles in
his camp, he there arranged a new government of the city
with prefect and senate, palatine judges and other magistrates,
exactly similar to the existing government within the walls.
He then took his departure, returned several times in vain,
but at last forced his way into the city (March 1084) and
compelled Gregory VII. to seek refuge in the castle of St
Angelo. The emperor was then master of Rome, established
the government he had previously arranged and, calling a
parliament of nobles and bishops, procured the deposition of
Gregory and the consecration of Clement III., by whom he
was crowned in 1084. He then attacked and seized the
Capitol, and assaulted the castle in order to capture the pope.
But Robert Guiscard brought his army to the rescue. Emperor
and antipope fled; the city was taken, the pope liberated and
Rome reduced to ruin by fire and pillage. Upon this Gregory
VII., broken with grief, went away with the Normans, and
died at Salerno on the 25th May 1085. He had separated
the church from the people and the empire by a struggle that,
as Gregorovius says, disturbed the deep sleep of the middle
ages.

Pope Paschal II. (1099-1118) found himself entirely at the
mercy of the tyrannous nobles who were alike masters of Rome,
Paschal II. and the nobles.
of its government, and its spiritual lord. As they
were divided among themselves, all the pope could
do was to side with one party in order to overcome
the other. With the help of his own nephew Gualfredo, the
prefect Pietro Pierleone, and the Frangipani, he was able to
keep down the Corsi, and hold the Colonna in check. Being
compelled to repair to Benevento in 1108, he left Gualfredo
to command the militia, Tolomeo of Tusculum to guard the
Campagna, and the consuls Pierleone and Leone Frangipani,
together with the prefect, in charge of the government. The
consulship was no longer a mere title of honour. The consuls
seem to have been elected, as at Ravenna, in imitation of those
of the Lombard cities, and were at the head of the nobles and
senate. The expressions “praefectus et consules,” “de senatoribus
et consulibus,” are now of frequent occurrence. We
have no precise knowledge of the political organization of the
city at this moment; but it was an aristocratic government,
similar to that originally formed in Florence, as Villani tells
us, with a senate and consuls. The nobles were so completely
the masters that the pope, in spite of having trusted them
with the government, could only return to Rome with the aid
of the Normans. Being now absorbed in the great investiture
question, he had recourse to a daring plan. He proposed to
Henry V. that the bishops should resign all property derived
from the crown and depend solely on tithes and donations,
while the empire should resign the right of investiture. Henry
seemed disposed to accept the suggestion, but, suddenly changing
his mind, took the pope prisoner and forced him to yield
the right of investiture and to give him the crown (1111). But
the following year the party of reform annulled in council this
concession, which the pope declared to have been extorted by
force. By the death of Countess Matilda in 1115 and the
bequest of her vast possessions to the Holy See, the pope's
dominions were greatly enlarged, but his authority as a ruler was
nowise increased. Deeds of violence still continued in Rome;
and then followed the death of the prefect Pietro. The nobles
of the imperial party, joined with the people, wished to elect
Pietro's son, also nephew to Tolomeo of Tusculum, who then
held the position of a potent imperial margrave, had territories
stretching from the Sabine mountains to the sea, was the
dictator of Tusculum, master of Latium and consul of the
Romans. The pope opposed this election to the best of his
strength; but the nobles carried the day, and their new prefect
received investiture from the emperor. Upon this the pope
again quitted Rome, and on his return, two years later, was
compelled to shut himself up in the castle of St Angelo, where
he died in 1118.

The popes were now the sport of the nobles whom they had
aggrandized by continual concessions for the sake of peace.
New power of the people.
And peace seemed at hand when Innocent II. (1130-43),
after triumphing over two anti popes, came to terms
with Roger I., recognized him as king of Sicily, and
gained his friendship and protection. But now still
graver tumults took place. In consequence of the division of
the nobles neither party could overcome its foes without the
aid of the people, which thus became increasingly powerful.
Throughout upper and central Italy the cities were being
organized as free and independent communes on a democratic
basis. Their example soon followed in the ancient duchy of
Rome and almost in the immediate neighbourhood of the
city. Even Tivoli was converted into a republic. This excited
the deepest jealousy in the Romans, and they became furious
when this little city, profiting by its strong position in the Teverone
valley, not only sought to annex Roman territory, but
dared to offer successful resistance to the descendants of the
conquerors of the world. In 1141 Tivoli openly rebelled
against the mother city, and the pope sent the Romans to
subdue it. They were not only repulsed, but ignominiously
pursued to their own gates. Afterwards, returning to the
assault in greater numbers, they conquered the hostile town.
Its defenders surrendered to the pope, and he immediately
concluded a treaty of peace without consulting either the
people or the republic. The soldiery, still flushed with victory,
were furious at this slight. They demanded not only submission
of Tivoli to the Roman people, but also permission to
demolish its walls and dwellings and expel its population.
Innocent II. refused consent to these excesses, and a memorable
revolution ensued by which the temporal power of the papacy
was entirely overthrown.

In 1143 the rebellious people rushed to the Capitol, proclaimed
the republic, reconstituted the senate, to the almost
Popular revolution. Reconstruction of senate and republic.
entire exclusion of the nobles, declared the abolition
of the temporal power, issued coin inscribed to the
senate, the people and St Peter, and began to reckon
time from the day of the restoration of liberty. Arnold
of Brescia was not, as has been incorrectly stated, the
and author of this revolution, for he had not yet arrived in
Rome. It was the outcome of an historic necessity—above
all, of the renewed vigour of the people and its detestation
of the feudal aristocracy. This body, besides being divided
into an imperial and a national party, had almost excluded
from the government the powerful baronage of the Campagna
and the provinces. Also, as we have before noted, the Roman
aristocracy was by no means an exclusive caste. Between the
great aristocrats and the people there stood a middle or new
nobility, which made common cause with the people, whose
chief strength now lay in the army. This, divided into twelve
and then into thirteen or fourteen regions, assembled under its
banners all arm-bearing citizens. Thus the exercitus was also
the real populus Romanus, now bent on the destruction of the
temporal power. This purpose, originating in the struggle of
the investitures, was the logical and inevitable result of the
proposals of Paschal II., which, despite their rejection, found
a loud echo in Italy. Lucius II. (1144-45) tried to withstand
the revolution by seeking Norman aid and throwing himself into
the arms of the feudal party, but this only precipitated the
course of events. The people, after having excluded nearly
all aristocrats from the senate, now placed at its head the noble
Giordano dei Pierleoni, who had joined the revolutionary party.
They named him patrician, but without prejudice to the
authority of the empire, still held by them in respect, and also
conferred on him the judicial powers appertaining to the aristocratic and imperial office of prefect. The pope was requested
to resign the temporal power, the regalia and every other
possession, and content himself with the tithes and offerings of
the faithful according to the scheme of Paschal II. He indignantly refused, marched at the head of the nobles against the
Capitol, but was violently repulsed, and received a blow on the
head from a stone, which is supposed to have occasioned his
speedy death on the 15th February 1145. Eugenius III. was
then elected (1145-53), but soon had to fly to Viterbo in quest
of armed assistance, in consequence of the senate's resolve to
prevent his consecration by force until he recognized the new
state of things in the Eternal City.

It was at this moment that Arnold of Brescia arrived in
Rome. His ideas, already well known in Italy, had inspired
Arnold of Brescia.
and promoted the Roman revolution, and he now
came to determine its method and direction. Born
at Brescia in the beginning of the 12th century, Arnold
had studied in France under the celebrated Abelard, who had
instructed him in theology and philosophy, inspired him with
a great love for antiquity, and stimulated his natural independence
of mind. On returning to his native land he assumed the
monkish habit, and proved the force and fervour of his character
by taking part in all struggles for liberty. And, together with
political reform, he preached his favourite doctrine of the
necessary renunciation by the clergy of all temporal wealth.
Expounded with singular eloquence, these doctrines had a
stirring effect on men's minds, spread throughout the cities of
northern Italy, and were echoed on all sides. It seems undoubted
that they penetrated to Rome and helped to promote
the revolution, so that Arnold was already present in spirit
before he arrived there in person. It is known that at the
Lateran council of 1139 Innocent II. had declared these doctrines
to be inimical to the church and enjoined silence on their author.
And, as at that time the party hostile to liberty was triumphant
in Brescia, Arnold left his native place, crossed the Alps and
returned to France, where other struggles awaited him. He
professed no anti-Catholic dogmas,—only maintaining that
when the pope and the prelacy deviated from the gospel rule of
poverty they should not be obeyed, but fearlessly opposed. In
France, finding his master, Abelard, exposed to the persecutions
of St Bernard, he assumed his defence with so
much ardour that St Bernard directed the thunders of
his eloquence against the disciple as well as the master,
saying of the former, “He neither eats nor drinks, suffers
hunger, and, being leagued with the devil, only thirsts for
the blood of souls.” In 1142 we find Arnold a wanderer in
Switzerland, and then, suddenly reappearing in Italy, he
arrived in Rome.

Three different elements entered into his nature and inspired
his eloquence—an exalted and mystic temperament, a great and
candid admiration for classic antiquity added to an equal
admiration for republican freedom independent of the church
and the empire, and a profound conviction, derived from the
Vaudois and Paterine doctrines, that the church could only
be purified by the renunciation of temporal wealth. Finding
Rome already revolutionized in accordance with his own ideas,
he immediately began to preach there. His mystic exhortations
against the riches of the church had an inflammatory
effect, while his classical reminiscences aroused the enthusiasm
of the Romans, and his suggestion that they should imitate
the republican institutions of upper Italy met the necessities
of the time that had created the revolution. He urged the
reconstitution of the ancient senate and senatorial order, which
indeed was already partially accomplished, and of the ancient
equestrian order, and the reconstruction and fortification of the
Capitol. His proposed senate was a body somewhat resembling
the communal councils of upper Italy, his equestrian order a
mounted force composed of the lesser nobility, since at Rome
as elsewhere, the lower classes had neither time nor means to
form part of it. All his suggestions were accepted; the citizens
laboured strenuously on the fortification of the Capitol. The
pope soon beheld the revolution spread beyond the walls, and
several cities of the state proclaimed their independence. The
barons of the Campagna profited by the opportunity to act as
independent sovereigns. Thus the whole domain of the church
was threatened with dissolution. The pope marched towards
Rome with his newly gathered army, but hoped to come to
terms. The Romans in fact recognized his authority, and
he in his turn recognized the republic. The office of patrician
was abolished, and seems to have been replaced by that
of gonfalonier, and the prefect, answering to the podestà
of the other republics, was revived. The senators received
investiture from the pope, who returned to Rome at Christmas
1145.

There public now seems to have been fully constituted. The
senate was drawn from the lower classes and the petty nobility,
and this was the special characteristic of the new revolution.
In 1144 there were fifty-six senators, probably four to each of
the fourteen regions, but the number often varied. By the few
existing documents of the period we notice that the senators
were divided into senatores consiliarii and ordinary senators.
The former constituted a smaller council, which, like the
credenza or lesser council found in other cities, consulted with
the head or heads of the republic on the more urgent and secret
affairs of the state. And, conjointly with the rest of the
senators, it formed the greater council. Thus classic traditions
were identified with new republican usages, and the commonwealth
of Rome resembled those in other parts of Italy. But,
of course, every republic had special local customs of its own.
So the Roman senate had judicial as well as political attributes,
and there was a curia senatus composed of senators and legal
experts.

As was easily to be foreseen, the agreement with the pope
was of short duration. The revolution could not be checked;
the Romans desired independence, and their spiritual lord fled
to France, whence, in 1147, he proclaimed a new crusade, while
the Romans were employed in demolishing Tivoli, banishing its
inhabitants, and waging war on other cities. Giordano Pierleone
was gonfalonier and head of the republic, and Arnold,
supported by the popular favour and the enthusiasm of the
lower clergy, was preaching with even greater fervour than
before. But the pope now re-entered Italy, proclaimed Arnold
a schismatic, and then advancing to Tusculum assembled an
army in order to attack Rome. In this emergency the Romans
applied to Conrad III., the first emperor of the house of Hohenstaufen;
and their urgent letters are clearly expressive of
Arnold's theories and his medley on ancient and modern, sacred
and profane, ideas. “Rome,” so they said, “is the fountain
of the empire confided to you by the Almighty, and we seek to
restore to Rome the power possessed by her under Constantine
and Justinian. For this end we conquered and destroyed the
strongholds of the barons who, together with the pope and the
Normans, sought to resist us. These are now attacking us on
all sides. Haste to Rome, the capital of the world, thus to
establish thy imperial sway over the Italian and German
lands.”

After long hesitation the king of the Romans, at last replied
to these appeals, stating that he would come “to re-establish
order, reward the faithful, and punish the rebellious.” These
words promised ill. In fact Conrad had already arranged terms
with the pope; but his life came to an end on the 15th of
February 1152.

He was succeeded by Frederick I. surnamed Barbarossa, who
took no notice of the numerous letters urging him to come and
Frederick I.
receive the empire from the Roman people, which
alone had the right of conferring it. In accordance
with his design of subduing all the independent cities,
he made an agreement with the pope, in which he vowed to give
no truce to the Romans, but subject them to their spiritual
lord, whose temporal power should be restored. The pope, on
his side, promised to crown him emperor. Thereupon the
people again rose to arms, and Arnold broke off all negotiations
with Eugenius III. The senate was reorganized, formed of
one hundred members, and, according to the old Roman precedent,
had two consuls, one for internal and the other for
external affairs. Frederick was a daring statesman, a valiant
soldier in command of a powerful army, and was no friend of
half measures. Accordingly the nobles ventured on reaction.
Finally, to increase the gravity of the situation, an English pope,
Adrian IV., was elected (1154-59), who was also a man of strong
and resolute temper. In fact, even before being able to take
possession of the Lateran, he requested the Romans to banish
Arnold, who, with greater eloquence than ever, was directing
his thunders against the papacy. These utterances increased
the wrath of Adrian, who, encouraged by the knowledge that
Frederick and his host were already in Italy, at last launched an
interdict against Rome. It was the first time that a pope had
ventured to curse the Eternal City. The interdict put a summary
stop to the religious life of the inhabitants. Men's minds
were seized with a sudden terror, and a fierce tumult broke out.
Thereupon the senators, whose opposition to the pope was less
courageous than that of the fallen magnates, prostrated themselves
at his feet and implored pardon. But Adrian demanded
the expulsion of Arnold before consenting to raise the interdict.
Arnold was therefore obliged to leave Rome. After having for
nine years preached successfully in favour of liberty, after having
been the moving spirit of the new revolution, the new constitution,
he was now abandoned by all, and forced to wander
from castle to castle, in the hope of reaching some independent
city capable of shielding him from the fierce enmity of the pope.
Meanwhile Frederick I. had achieved his first victories in Lombardy,
and, leaving ruined cities and bloodshed in his track,
was rapidly advancing towards central Italy. The pope sent
three cardinals to him, with a request for the capture and consignment
of Arnold, who had taken refuge in the castle of the
Visconti of Campagnatico. Frederick without delay caused
one of the Visconti to be seized and kept prisoner until Arnold
was given up, and then consigned the latter to the papal legates.
The pope in his turn gave the reformer into the hands of the
Arnold's execution.
prefect, Pietro di Vico, who immediately hanged his
prisoner, burnt his body at the stake and cast his
into the Tiber. The execution took place in June
1155. The exact date and place of it are unknown; we only know
that Arnold met his fate with great serenity and firmness.

But the Romans who had so basely deserted their champion
would not give up their republic. Their envoys went to meet
Frederick near Sutri, and made an address in the usual fantastic
style on the privileges of the Roman people and its sole right to
confer the imperial crown. But Frederick indignantly cut short
their harangue, and they had to depart full of rage. He then
continued his march, and, entering Rome on the 18th of June
1155, was forthwith crowned in St Peter's by the pope. Thereupon
the Romans rushed to arms, and made a furious attack on
the Leonine city and the imperial camp. A desperate battle
went on throughout the day, and the knights proved that the
equestrian order instituted at Arnold's suggestion was no empty
sham. About a thousand Romans perished by the sword or by
drowning, but their fellow-citizens made such determined preparations
to continue the struggle that Frederick, on the 19th of
June, hastily retreated, or rather fled, and was escorted as far
as Tivoli by the pope and the cardinals. After all, the temporal
power of the papacy was not restored, and the republic still
The republic still remains.
survived in the form bestowed on it by Arnold of Brescia.
Its existence was in truth favourable rather than
injurious to Frederick, whose aim was to rule over
Rome and treat the bishops as his vassals. He had
not yet discerned that his best policy would have been to use
the republic as a lever against the pope. The latter, with
keener acumen, while remaining faithful to the feudal party in
Rome, made alliance with the communes of Lombardy and encouraged
them in their resistance to the emperor. Adrian IV.
died in 1159, and the national party elected Alexander III.
(1159-81), who energetically opposed the pretensions of
Frederick, but, having to struggle with three antipopes successively
raised against him by the imperial party, was repeatedly
driven into exile. During these schisms the senate quietly
carried on the government, administered justice, and made war
on some neighbouring cities and barons. An army comprising
many nobles of the national party marched against Tusculum,
but found it defended by several valiant officers and a strong
band of German soldiery, who, on the 29th of May 1167, inflicted
on the Romans so severe a defeat that it is styled by Gregorovius
the Cannae of the middle ages. Shortly afterwards the emperor
arrived in Rome with his antipope Paschal III., and Alexander
had to fly before him to Benevento. Then, at last, Frederick
came to terms with the republic, recognized the senate, which
accepted investiture at his hands, re-established the prefecture
as an imperial office, and bestowed it on Giovanni, son of Pietro
di Vico. He then hastily departed, without having advanced
outside the Leonine city.

Meanwhile Pope Alexander continued the crafty policy of
Adrian and with better success, for the Lombard cities had
Agreement between the republic and the pope.
now formed a league and inflicted a signal defeat on
the emperor at Legnano on the 29th of May 1176. One
of the results of this battle was the conclusion of
an agreement between the pope and the emperor, the
latter resigning his pretensions on Rome and yielding
all that he had denied to Adrian. And by the treaty of Venice
(1st of August 1177) the antipope was forsaken, Alexander III.
recognized and hailed as the legitimate pontiff, and the prefect of
Rome again nominated by the pope, to whom the emperor
restored the temporal power, acknowledging him the independent
sovereign of Rome and of the ecclesiastical state,
from Acquapendente to Ceprano. Frederick's troops accompanied
the pope to Rome, where the republic was forced
to make submission to him. But, proudly conscious as
it still was of its strength, its surrender wore the aspect of a
voluntary concession, and its terms began with these words:
“Totius populi Romani consilio et deliberatione statutum est,”
&c. The senators, elected yearly in September, had to swear
fealty to the pope, and a certain proportion of nobles was included
in their number. On his return to Rome, Alexander
received a solemn welcome from all, but he had neither extinguished
nor really subdued the republic. On the contrary,
men's minds were more and more inflamed by the example of
freedom displayed in the north of Italy. He died on the 30th
of August 1181. The fact that between 1181 and 1187 there were
three popes always living in exile proves that the republic was
by no means crushed. During the same period another blow
was inflicted on the papacy by the marriage of Henry VI.,
son and successor to Frederick I., with Constance, sole heiress
of the Norman line in Naples. For thus the kingdom was
joined to the empire, and the popes were more than ever in the
latter's power. On the 20th of December 1187 Clement III.
(1187-91), being raised to the pontificate, made a solemn agreement
with the government of the Capitol before coming to
Rome. And this peace or concordia had the air of a treaty
between potentates of equal importance. Rome confronted
the pope from the same standpoint from which the Lombard
cities had confronted the emperor after Legnano. This treaty,
the basis of the new constitution, was confirmed on the last day
of May 1188 (Anno XLIV. of the senate). It begins with these
words: “Concordia inter Dominum Papam Clementem III.
et senator es populumque Romanum super regalibus et aliis
dignitatibus urbis.” The pope was recognized as supreme lord,
and invested the senators with their dignity. He resumed the
privilege of coinage, but allowed one-third of the issue to
be made by the senate. Almost all the old pontifical rights
and prerogatives were restored to him. The pope might employ
the Roman militia for the defence of his patrimony, but was to
furnish its pay. The rights of the church over Tivoli and
Tusculum were confirmed; but the republic reserved to itself
the right of making war on those cities, and declared its resolve
to dismantle and destroy the walls and castle of Tusculum.
In this undertaking the pope was to co-operate with the
Romans, even should the unhappy city make surrender to him
alone.

From all this it is clear that the church had been made independent
of the empire, and that the republic, despite its numerous
Rome independent of the empire.
concessions, was by no means subject to the church.
The pope, in fact, had obtained liberty of election, and
Frederick I., by resigning the investiture of the
prefect, had virtually renounced his claim to imperial
power in Rome. The republic had no patrician nor any
other imperial magistrate, and preserved its independence
even as regarded the pope, who merely granted investiture
to magistrates freely chosen by the people, and had no
legislative nor administrative power in the city. His temporal
dominion was limited to his great possessions, to his regalia,
to a supreme authority that was very indefinite, and to a
feudal authority over the barons of the Campagna and many
cities of a state that seemed ever on the point of dissolution.
The senate continued to frame laws, to govern, and to administer
justice. The army carried on the wars of the republic,
as we see by the tragic fate of Tusculum, which was razed to
the ground on the 19th of April 1191. Thus the powerful
counts of Tusculum disappeared; they sought refuge in the
Campagna, and according to all probability the no less potent
family of the Colonna sprang from their line. In consequence
of these events, the nobles realized that the papacy sought
The nobles re-enter the senate.
to reduce them to vassalage. And, seeing that the
republic remained firmly established and able to help
them, they began to adhere to it and succeeded in
obtaining admission to the new senate. In fact,
whereas since 1143, plebeians and petty nobles
had prevailed in its ranks, nobles of ancient descent are
now found outnumbering the knights and burghers.
But in 1191 this state of things caused a sudden popular
outbreak
Popular revolution and counter-revolution of the aristocracy.
which abolished the aristocratic senate popular
and gave the headship of the republic to a single
senator, summus senator, named Benedetto “Carissimus”
or “Carus Homo” or “Carosomo,” of unknown,
but undoubtedly plebeian, origin. During
the two years he remained in office this personage
stripped the pope of his revenues, despatched
justitiarii even to the provinces, and with the aid of the parliament
and other popular assemblies promulgated laws and statutes.
But he was overthrown by a counter-revolution, and
Giovanni Capoccio of the party of the nobles became senator
for two years, and had been succeeded by one of the Pierleoni
when, in 1197, a fresh revolution re-established a senate of
fifty-six members, chiefly consisting of feudal barons in high
favour with Henry VI., who had revived the imperial faction
in Rome. But this emperor's life ended the same year as the
pope's, in 1198, and the new pontiff, Innocent III. (1198-1216),
began to make war on the nobles, who were again masters of
the republic. Their leader was the prefect Pietro di Vico.
Owing to the revolution of 1143, most of the prefectorial attributes
were now vested in the senate; nevertheless, Pietro
still retained a tribunal of police both within and without the
city. But his main strength was derived from the vast possessions
The office of prefect becomes hereditary.
of the Vico family, in which the office of prefect
now became hereditary. Very soon, however, these
prefects of Vico were chiefly regarded as the great
feudal lords of Tuscia, and the independent municipal
office lost its true character. Then the popes made a
point of according great pomp and dignity to this nominal
prefect, in order to overshadow the senator, who still
represented the independence of the republic and had assumed
many of the attributes wrested from the prefect.

But Innocent III., dissatisfied with this state of things,
contrived by bribing the people to arrogate to himself the
Innocent III. elects the senate.
right of electing the senator, who had now to swear
fealty and submission to the pope, and also that of
nominating the provincial justitiarii, formerly chosen
by the government of the Capitol. This was a
deadly blow to the republic, for the principal rights of the
people—i.e. the election of pope and emperor, prefect and
senate—were now lost. The general discontent provoked fresh
revolutions, and Innocent III. employed all his political dexterity
to ward off their effects. But shortly afterwards the people
made a loud outcry for a senate of fifty-six members; and
the pope, again making a virtue of necessity, caused that number
to be chosen by twelve mediani specially named by him for the
purpose. Even this did not calm the popular discontent,
which was also stirred by other disputes. The consequence
was that when, six months later, the pope again elected a
single senator the Romans rose to arms, and in 1204 formed
a government of Buoni Uomini in opposition to that created
by the pope. But an amicable arrangement being
concluded, the pope once more nominated fifty-six senators;
and when, soon after, he again reduced them to one, the
people were too weary to resist (1205). Thus the Capitol
was subdued, and Innocent III. spent his last years in
tranquillity.

On the 22nd of November 1220 Honorius III. (1216-27)
conferred the imperial crown on Frederick II., who confirmed
to the church the possession of her former states, of those
bequeathed to her by Countess Matilda, and even of the March
of Ancona. But it was soon seen that he sought to dominate
all Italy, and was therefore a foe to be dreaded. The
The republic regains independence.
successor of Honorius, Pope Gregory IX. (1227-41), was
speedily insulted and put to flight by the Ghibelline
nobles, whose courage had revived, and the republic
began to subdue the Latian cities on its own account.
Peace was several times made and unmade by pope
and people; but no enduring harmony was possible between
them, since the former wished to subject the entire state to
the church, and the latter to escape from the rule of the church
and hold sway over “the universal land from Ceprano to
Radicofani” formerly belonging to the duchy. Accordingly,
the Roman people now appointed judges, imposed taxes, issued
coin, and made the clergy amenable to secular tribunals. In
1234 the senator Luca Savelli published an edict declaring
Tuscia and Campania territories of the republic, and sent judges
thither to exact an oath of obedience. He also despatched
the militia to the coast, where it occupied several cities and
erected fortresses; and columns were raised everywhere
inscribed with the initials S. P. Q. R. The pope, unable to
prevent but equally unable to tolerate these acts, fled from
Rome, hurling his anathema against Savelli, “et omnes illos
consiliarios urbis quorum consilio,” &c. The Romans sacked
the Lateran and the houses of many cardinals, and marched
The republic submits to the people.
on Viterbo, but were driven back by the papal troops.
When Savelli left office and Angelo Malabranca was
elected in his stead, the people made peace and
submission in 1235, and were obliged to give up their
pretensions of subjecting the clergy to ordinary tribunals
and the urban territory to the republic. Thus matters
were virtually settled on the footing established by Innocent
III., thanks to the aid given to the pope by Frederick II., who
had been one of the promoters of the rebellion.

It may appear strange that, at this period of their history,
the Romans, after showing such tenacious adherence to the
republic and senate, should have accepted the rule of a single
senator without rushing to arms, and passed and repassed
from one form of government to another with such surprising
indifference. But on closer examination it is plain that these
changes were greater in appearance than reality. We have
already seen, in treating of Carosomo, how the single senator
Formation of the greater and lesser councils.
convoked the people in parliament to pass sanction
on the laws. But, whenever there is only one senator,
we also continually meet with the expression
“consilium vel consilia urbis.” It is evident that when,
instead of laws to be approved in parliament by a
simple placet or rejected by a non-placet, matters requiring
consideration had to be discussed, the senator convoked a much
smaller council, consisting only of the leaders of the people.
These leaders were the heads of the twelve or thirteen regions
of the guilds, now becoming organized and soon to be also
thirteen in number, and of the militia. As in the other
Italian republics, all these associations had been formed in
Rome.

The senator therefore held consultation with the leading
men of the city; and, although, especially at first, these meetings
were rather loosely organized, it is clear that they took
the form of two councils—one numerous (consiglio maggiore),
the other limited (consiglio minore or speciale), co-operating
with and forming part of the first. Such was the prevailing
custom throughout Italy at the time when Roman institutions
most nearly resembled those of the other republics. We
already know that, from the date of Arnold's reforms, the senate,
with its junta of counsellors, had been divided into two parts,
forming when united a species of greater council. Therefore
the transition from a senate divided into two parts to the
greater and lesser councils must have been very easy and
natural. And, seeing that later, when the nomination of a
single senator had become a constant practice, the meetings
of the two councils are frequently mentioned without the
slightest remark or hint as to their origin, it is clear that they
had been gradually formed and long established. Not long
after the revolution of 1143 the grandees sought to re-enter
the senate; and the popes themselves, partly from dread of
the people and partly to aggrandize their own kindred,
contributed to build up the power of a new and no less turbulent
nobility. This class, arising between the 12th and 13th centuries,
was composed of families newly created by the popes, together
with remnants of the old aristocracy, such as the Frangipani,
Colonna, &c. These nobles, regaining possession of the senate,
so completely eliminated the popular element that, when the
popes again opposed them, and, obtaining from the parliament
the right of electing the senators, adopted the expedient
of appointing one only, the senator was always chosen from
the ranks of the nobles. And then the people, unable and
unwilling to renounce republican forms, replaced their
suppressed senate by a greater and a lesser council. This was an
easy task—a natural consequence of the fact that the people
now began to constitute the real strength of the republic.
Later, with an increasing detestation for their nobility, the
Romans decreed that the single senator should be of foreign
birth, and, as we shall see, chose Brancaleone in the middle of
the 13th century.

Thus, after a long series of frequent changes and revolutions,
the Roman republic became a commonwealth, with an
increasing resemblance to those of the other Italian cities. The
people were organized and armed, the gilds almost established,
the two councils gradually constituted, and the aristocracy,
while retaining special local characteristics, assumed its
The Roman statutes.
definitive shape. It is not surprising to find that
Rome, like other Italian cities, now possessed statutes
of its own. There has been much controversy on
this point. Certain writers had alluded to a statute of 1246.
As no one, however, could discover any statute of that date,
others decided that it had never existed. A statute of 1363
was recently published by Professor Camillo Re, who asserted
it to be the first and most ancient that Rome had possessed.
But the still more recent researches of Messrs La Mantia and
Levi prove that Professor Re's assertions were somewhat too
bold. There is certain evidence of a statutum senatus existing
between 1212 and 1227, of a statutum vel capitulare senatorisvel senatus of 1235, followed in 1241 by a statutum urbis. This
brings us very near to the statute of 1246 mentioned by Vitale
and others. So it is well ascertained that, in the first half
of the 13th century. Rome possessed statutes at large composed
of older limited statutes. The consuls of the trade gilds were
from 1267 regular members of the councils; and the merchants'
gild held general meetings in 1255. Its statutes were confirmed
in 1296 by the senator Pandolfo Savelli, and the compilation
of these, published in 1880 by Signor Gatti, refers to
1317.

Meanwhile the struggle between Frederick II. and the pope
was once more renewed. The former sought to dominate
Frederick II. and the pope.
Italy, separate the state from the church, and repress
the republics. The latter, although really hostile to
the Roman free government, joined it against the
emperor, who on his side favoured the republic of
Rome and the nobles most adverse to the pope. Thus the new
nobility, composed, as we have seen, of two different elements,
was again split into a Guelph party headed by the Orsini and
a Ghibelline party under the Colonna. And in 1238 it was
deemed advisable to elect two senators instead of one, in the
hope of conciliating both factions by simultaneously raising
them to power. Afterwards one only was elected, alternately
an Orsini and a Colonna, then again two, and so on. But all
these changes failed in their aims, since the struggle between
emperor and pope exasperated party feeling in Rome. Frederick
was king of southern Italy and emperor; had he been
able to enforce the whole of his authority he would have been
absolute master of all Italy, a state of things which the popes
could not in any way tolerate. Hence the obstinate and uninterrupted
struggle which proved injurious both to the papacy
and the empire. The political genius of Frederick might
have wrought great harm to the city had not his mind teemed
with contradictory ideas. Although desirous to emancipate
the state from the church, he was opposed to the communal
democracy, which was then the chief strength of the secular
state in Italy. While combating the church and persecuting
her defenders, he yet sent heretics to the stake; although
excommunicated, he undertook a crusade; he feasted at his
table philosophers, sceptic and atheist poets, bishops and
Mussulmans; he proclaimed anti-Christian the possession of
wealth by the church, yet made lavish gifts to altar and monastery.
Thus, although he had a strong party in Rome, it
seemed to dissolve at his approach, inasmuch as all feared that
he might abolish the statutes and liberties of the commune.
In fact, when he advanced towards Rome on the death of
Gregory IX. in 1241 he was energetically repulsed by the
people, and later even by Viterbo, a city that had always been
faithful to him. But after he had withdrawn, his adherents
gained strength and put to flight his opponent, Innocent IV.
(1243-54), the newly elected pope, who then from his asylum
at Lyons hurled an excommunication against him. Frederick's
death in December 1250 determined the fall of the Ghibelline
party and the close of the imperial epoch in Italy. The pope
instantly returned to Rome with the set purpose of destroying
the power of the Hohenstaufens. This was no longer difficult
when, by the decease of Conrad IV. (1254), the child Conradin
became the last legitimate representative of that line, and
negotiations were already on foot for placing the Angevins on
the Neapolitan throne.

The republic meanwhile preserved its independence against
the pope, who, among other concessions, had entirely given up
to it the right of coinage. Nevertheless, being much harassed
by the fractiousness of the nobility, it was obliged in 1252 to
decide on the election of an alien senator armed with ample
powers, precisely as other communes gave the government into
the hands of a podestà. Accordingly a Bolognese noble,
Brancaleone degli Andalò, the first foreign senator.
Brancaleone degli Andalò, count of Casalecchio, and
a Ghibelline of much energy and talent, was invited
to Rome. But before accepting office he insisted on
making definite terms. He desired to hold the
government for three years; and this, although
contrary to the statutes, was granted. Further, to
ensure his personal safety, he demanded that many scions
of the noblest Roman houses should be sent as hostages to
Bologna; and to this also the republic consented. Then, in
August 1252, he came with his judges and notaries, made oath
to observe justice and the laws, and began to govern. He was
head of the republic in peace and in war, supreme judge and
captain in chief. He nominated the podestàs of subject territories,
dispatched ambassadors, issued coin, concluded treaties
and received oaths of obedience. The pope, who was then at
Perugia, was greatly afflicted by the arrival of this new master,
but, despairing of aid from any quarter, was forced to make a
virtue of necessity. Thus Brancaleone was able to seize the
reins of power with a firm grasp. The parliament still met in
the square of the Capitol, and the greater and lesser councils
in the church of Ara Coeli. There were besides frequent assemblies
of the college of Capitoline judges or assectamentum.
Unfortunately, no records having been preserved of the proceedings
of the Roman councils and parliament, little can be said
of the manner in which affairs were conducted. Certainly
Brancaleone's government was not very parliamentary. He
convoked the councils as seldom as was possible, although he
frequently assembled the people in parliament. The chief
complaint made against him was of undue severity in the administration
of justice. He rendered the clergy amenable to secular
tribunals, subdued the neighbouring cities of Tivoli, Palestrina,
&c., and commanded in person the attacking force. But his
greatest energy was directed to the repression of the more
turbulent nobles who were opposed to him; and he soon made
them feel the weight of his hand by hanging some, banishing
others, and persecuting several more. But he too recognized
the expediency of winning the popular favour. He was the
first senator to add to his title that of captain of the people
(“Almae Urbis Senator Ill: et Romani Populi Capitaneus”).
He befriended the people by promoting the organization of
gilds after the manner of those of his native Bologna. There
were already a few in Rome, such as the merchants' gild and
that of the agriculturists, Bobacteriorum or Bovattari, who
must have resembled the so-called mercanti di campagna or
graziers of the present day, since no peasant gild existed
in Italian republics. The merchants' gild, definitely established
in 1255 under Brancaleone's rule, had four consuls
and twelve councillors, held meetings and made laws. The
other gilds, thirteen in all, were organized much on the same
plan. The admission of their heads into the councils of the
republic in 1267 shows how efficaciously their interests had
been promoted by Brancaleone.

The death of Innocent IV. and the election of Alexander IV.
(1254-61), who was milder and less shrewd than his predecessor,
were favourable events for Brancaleone; but he failed to check
the growing discontent of the clergy and the more powerful
nobles, who had received deadly injuries at his hands. And
when, on the expiration of his three years' term of office, his
re-election was proposed, his enemies rose against him, accused
him before the sindacato, threw him into prison, and vehemently
protested against the continuance of “foreign tyranny.”
His life was only spared on account of the hostages sent to
Bologna. The next senator chosen was a Brescian Guelph,
Emanuele de Madio, a tool of the nobles, who were now masters
of the situation. But soon afterwards, in 1257, the gilds rose
in revolt, drove the nobles from power, put the pope to flight,
and recalled Brancaleone for another three years' term. He
ruled more sternly than before, hung several nobles, and made
alliance with Manfred, the representative of the Swabian party
in Italy. This rendered him increasingly odious to the pope
and procured his excommunication. But, disregarding the
thunders of the church, he marched against Anagni, the pope's
birthplace, and Alexander was quickly obliged to humiliate
himself before the senator of Rome. Brancaleone next set to
work to destroy the fortified towers of the nobility, and in razing
them to the ground ruined many of the adjacent dwellings.
Accordingly, a considerable number of nobles became homeless
exiles. In 1258, while engaged on the siege of Corneto, Brancaleone
was attacked by a violent fever, and, being carried back
to Rome, died on the Capitoline Hill. Thus ended the career of
a truly remarkable statesman. He was succeeded by his uncle,
Castellano degli Andalò, who, lacking the political genius of his
nephew, only retained office until the following spring (1259),
in the midst of fierce and perpetual disturbances. Then the
people, being bribed by the pope, joined with the nobles and
drove him away. His life too was saved by having followed
his nephew's shrewd plan of sending hostages to Bologna. Two
senators of Roman birth were next elected; and on the death
of Alexander IV. a French pope was chosen, Urban IV. (1261-64),
thus giving fresh predominance in the church to the anti-Swabian
policy. But the internal disturbances of the city soon
drove Urban to flight.

At this period the fall of the empire had induced many Italian
republics to seek strength by placing their governments in the
hands of some prince willing to swear respect to their laws and
to undertake their defence against neighbouring states and the
pope. In Rome the Guelphs and Ghibellines proposed various
candidates for this office, and after many fierce quarrels ended
by electing a committee of boni homines, charged with the revision
of the statutes, reorganization of the city, and choice of a senator.
This committee sat for more than a year without nominating
any one, so, the Guelph party being now predominant, and all
being wearied of this provisional state of things, the majority
agreed on the election as senator of Charles of Anjou, who, at
Charles of Anjou senator.
the pope's summons, was already preparing for the
conquest of Naples. The Romans thought that he
would defend Rome against the pope, and the pope
would defend Rome against him; and by thus taking advantage
of either's jealousy the citizens hoped to keep their republic intact.
In fact, although Urban IV. had incited Charles to attack
Naples, he was by no means willing to see him established as
master in Rome. He accordingly declared that, if Charles
really wished to obtain the Neapolitan crown, he must only accept
the offered dignity pending the conquest of that kingdom.
And he must likewise promise to recognize the supremacy of
the pope over the senate. Charles soothed him with the amplest
verbal promises, but in fact accepted the senatorship for life. In
1265, when Urban was succeeded by Clement IV. (1265-68), who
as a Provençal was a subject of Charles, the latter entered Rome
and was immediately made senator. Seven days later (28th of
June) he received the investiture of the Neapolitan kingdom, and
in the following January its crown. On the 26th of February
1266 the battle of Benevento was fought, and, the valiant
Manfred being killed, the triumph of the Guelph Angevins in Italy
was assured. Then, at the urgent command of the pope,
Charles was forced to resign the senatorship in the May of
the same year. Two Romans were elected in his stead, but
soon fell out with the pope, because the Guelph nobles again tried
to exercise tyranny. The people, however, profited by these
disturbances to rise on its own account, and formed a democratic
government of twenty-six boni homines with Angelo Capocci,
Don Henry of Castile senator.
a Ghibelline, as its captain. By this government Don
Henry, son of Ferdinand III. of Castile, was elected
senator; and he came to Rome for the purpose of
promoting a Ghibelline and Swabian policy in favour of
Conradin, who was preparing for conflict. The rule of the new
senator was very energetic, for he kept down the clergy, subdued
the Campagna, persecuted the Guelph nobles, made alliance with
the Tuscan Ghibellines, forcibly drove back the troops of King
Charles, who was advancing towards Rome, and gave a splendid
reception to Conradin. But the battle of Tagliacozzo (23rd of
August 1268), followed by the murder of Conradin, proved fatal
to the Ghibelline party. Charles was re-elected senator
immediately
after the battle, and the pope confirmed his powers for
a term of ten years, after having already named him imperial
vicar in Tuscany. On the 16th of September Charles for the
second time took possession of the Capitol, and ruled Rome
firmly by means of vice-governors or vicars.

The Swabian line was now extinct, and in Charles's hands
the Neapolitan kingdom had become a fief of the church. The
empire had fallen so low as to be no longer formidable. Now
therefore was the moment for treating with it in order to restrain
Charles, and also for making use of the French king to keep the
empire in check. And this was the policy of Nicholas III.
(1277-80), who hastened to extract advantageous promises
from Rudolph of Habsburg, the new candidate for the imperial
crown. In 1278, the ten years' term having expired, he deprived
Charles of the senatorship and appointed Rudolph vicar of
Tuscany. After declaring that he left to the people the right of
electing the senator, he promulgated a new constitution (18th of
July 1278) which, while confirming the rights of the church over
the city, prohibited the election of any foreign emperor, prince,
marquis, count or baron as senator of Rome. Thus the
Colonna, Savelli, Orsini, Annibaldi and other Roman nobles
again rose to power, and the republic was again endangered and
The senate in the hands of the popes.
plunged in disorder. The Romans then gave the
reconstitution of the city into the pope's hands by
yielding to him the right of nominating senators,
declaring, however, that this was a personal concession
to himself, and not to the popes in general. So
Nicholas proceeded to name senators, alternating a Colonna
with an Orsini, or simultaneously choosing one of each faction.
The same power over the senate was granted with the
same restriction to Martin IV. (1281-85), and he at once re-elected
Charles of Anjou. Thus, greatly to the disgust of the
Romans, the Capitol was again invaded by French vicars,
notaries, judges and soldiery. But the terrible blow dealt at
Charles's power by the Sicilian Vespers (31st of March 1282)
resounded even in Rome. The Orsini, backed by the people,
rose to arms, massacred the French garrison, and quickly
re-established a popular government. Giovanni Cencio, a
kinsman of the Orsini, was elected captain and defender of the
people, and ruled the city with the co-operation of the senator
and a council of priors of the gilds. This government was of
brief duration, for, although the pope had professed his willingness
to tolerate the experiment, he quickly arranged fresh
terms, and, forsaking Charles of Anjou, again nominated two
Roman senators. Pope and king both died in 1285, and
Nicholas IV. (1288-92), also holding sway over the senate,
favoured the Colonna in order to curb the growing mastery of
the Orsini. But thus there were two powerful houses instead of
one. In fact, Giovanni Colonna, when elected senator, ruled
from the Capitol as an independent sovereign, conducted in
person the campaign against Viterbo, and subjected that city
to the republic on the 3rd of May 1291.

When one of the Gaetani, Boniface VIII. (1294-1303), was
raised to the papal chair, the extent of the Colonnas' power
Boniface VIII.
became evident to all. Boniface opposed them in
order to aggrandize his own kin, and they showed
equal virulence in return. The Cardinals Colonna
refused to acknowledge him as the legitimate pope, and he
excommunicated them and proclaimed a crusade against their
house. Even after he had subdued them and destroyed
Palestrina, their principal fief, the drama did not yet come
to an end. Boniface had a very lofty conception of the church,
and desired to establish her supremacy over the state. The
king of France (Philip the Fair) believed, on the contrary,
that the Angevin successes entitled him to fill the place in
Italy vacated by the Swabians, and to play the master there.
This led to a tremendous contest in which all the French sided
with their king. And shortly afterwards a plot was hatched
against the pope by the agents of France and the Colonna.
These determined enemies of the pope met with much favour
in Rome, on account of the general irritation against the
Gaetani and the enormous power conferred on them by Boniface.
Suffice it to say that they were now lords of the whole of lower
Latium, from Capo Circeo to Ninfa, from Ceprano to Subiaco.
Thus Sciarra Colonna and a Frenchman named Nogaret were
able to fall on the pope at Anagni, insult him, and take him
prisoner. The people rising to his rescue, the conspirators
were put to flight. But when Boniface returned to Rome
with the escort and protection of the Orsini, who had made
themselves masters of the city, he found that he was virtually
a captive in their hands. He felt this so keenly that he died
of rage and exhaustion on the 11th of October 1303. The brief
pontificate of his successor Benedict XI. was followed by that
of Clement V. (1305-14), a Frenchman, who, instead of coming
to Rome, summoned the cardinals to France. This was the
beginning of the church's so called exile in Avignon, which,
although depriving Rome of a scource of wealth and influence,
left the republic to pursue its own course. It employed this
The republic again takes a democratic form.
freedom in trying to hold its own against the nobles,
whose power was much lessened by the absence of
the pope, and endeavoured to gain fresh strength
by organizing the thirteen regions, which, as we
have shown, were associations of a much firmer
nature in Rome than the gilds. Accordingly, in
1305, a captain of the people was elected with thirteen elders
and a senator, Paganino della Torre, who governed for one
year. The pope was opposed to these changes at first, but
in 1310 he issued a brief granting Rome full permission
to select its own form of government. Thus, the first pope
in Avignon restored the rights of the Romans. But the
latter, even with church and empire so far removed, still
considered Rome the Eternal City, the source of all law, and
the only natural seat of the spiritual and temporal government
of the world. To their republic, they thought, appertained
a new and lofty destiny, nor could it ever be content to descend
to the level of other Italian municipalities.

On the 6th of January 1309 Henry VII. was crowned king
of the Romans at Aix-la-Chapelle; and so greatly were men's
Henry VII.
minds changed in Italy that, throughout the land, he
was hailed as a deliverer. He wished to restore the
grandeur of the empire, and the Italians, above all
Dante Alighieri, beheld in him the champion of the state against
the church, who, after becoming the foe of communal liberty,
had forsaken Italy and withdrawn to France. The Roman
people shared these ideas, and awaited Henry with equal
impatience, but the nobles rose in opposition. The Orsini,
leaders of the Guelphs, and allied with Robert of Naples, took
possession of the castle of St Angelo and the Trastevere.
Hence, when Henry reached Rome in May 1312, after seizing
the iron crown at Milan, he was obliged to act on the offensive.
He took the Capitol by assault, but, failing in his attack on the
castle of St Angelo, was pursued by its Neapolitan garrison.
Forsaken by many discouraged adherents, he was forced to
recognize the expediency of departure. First, however, he
desired to be crowned at the Lateran, St Peter's being held
by his foes. The cardinals refused his request, but were compelled
to yield by the threats of the people, who, reasserting
their ancient rights, insisted that the coronation should take
place without delay. And the ceremony was performed on
the 29th of June 1312. The emperor then resolved to depart
in spite of the popular protest against his leaving the natural
seat of the empire, and on the 20th of August started for
Tuscany, where worse fortune awaited him.

Their differences settled, the nobles expelled the captain
of the people left by Henry, and elected as senators Sciarra
Colonna and Francesco Orsini. But this was the
Jacopo Arlotti, captain of the people.
signal for a popular revolt. The Capitol was
attacked, the senators put to flight, and Jacopo
Arlotti elected captain with a council of twenty-six
worthies (buoni homini). The new leader instantly
summoned the chief nobles before his tribunal, had them
chained and cast into prison, and demolished many of their
houses and strongholds. But, having thus humiliated their
pride, Arlotti dared not put them to death, and, releasing them
from confinement, banished them to their estates, where they
plunged into hostile preparations. Meanwhile the victorious
people convoked a parliament and decreed that, the aristocracy
being now overthrown, the tribunitia potestas alone should
invite the emperor to make his triumphal entry into the Capitol,
and receive his authority from the people of Rome. This
conception of the Roman power will now be seen to become
more and more definite until finding its last expression in
Cola di Rienzi. Pope Clement, resigning himself to necessity,
acknowledged the new government under the energetic rule
of Arlotti. The latter now joined the Ghibellines of the
Campagna against the Orsini and the Neapolitans, subdued
Velletri, and gave it a podestà. But then the Gaetani, who
were Guelphs, united with the Orsini and the Neapolitans,
and, giving battle to the Ghibellines in the Campagna, routed
them in such wise as to put an end to the popular government.
The nobles forced their way into the city, attacked the Capitol,
made Arlotti their prisoner, and re-elected the senators Sciarra
Colonna and Francesco Orsini. Close upon these reverses came
the death of Henry VII. (24th of August 1313) at Buonconvento
near Siena, which put an end to the Ghibelline party in Italy.
Thereupon King Robert of Naples, being named senator by
the pope, immediately appointed a vicar in Rome. Clement
likewise profited by the vacancy of the imperial throne to name
the king imperial vicar in Tuscany. And he died on the 20th of
April 1314, well content to have witnessed the triumphs of
the Guelphs in Italy.

Affairs took a fresh turn under Pope John XXII. (1316-34).
Rome was still ruled by the vicars of King Robert; but,
owing to the continued absence of the popes, matters grew
daily worse. Trade and industry declined, revenue diminished,
the impoverished nobles were exceedingly turbulent, deeds
of murder and violence occurred on all sides; even by day
the streets of the city were unsafe. Hence there was universal
discontent. Meanwhile Louis the Bavarian, who in 1314 had
been crowned king of the Romans, having overcome his German
enemies at Mühldorf in 1322, turned against the pope, one
of his fiercest opponents. Louis was surrounded by Minorite
friars, supporters of the poverty of the church, and consequently
enemies to the temporal power. They were men of the stamp
of William of Occam, Marsilio of Padua, Giovanni Janduno,
and other philosophers favourable to the rights of the empire
and the people. Accordingly the Italian Ghibellines hailed
Louis as they had previously hailed Henry. Even the Roman
people were roused to action, and, driving out the representatives
and partisans of King Robert, in the spring of 1327,
seized on the castle of St Angelo, and again established a
democratic government. “Nearly all Italy was stirred to
new deeds,” says G. Villani, “and the Romans rose to arms
and organized the people” (bk. x. c. 20). Regardless of the
Sciarra Colonna, captain of the people.
reproofs of the pope, they elected a haughty Ghibelline,
Sciarra Colonna, captain of the people and general
of the militia, with a council of fifty-two popolani,
four to each region. Then, ranged under the standards of the militia, the Romans gave chase to the foes of
the republic, and Sciarra, returning victorious, ascended to
Louis the Bavarian.
the Capitol and invited Louis the Bavarian to Rome. Louis the
The summons was obeyed; on the 7th of January
1328 the king was already encamped in the Neronian
Fields with five thousand horse and a considerable number
of foot soldiers, and, with better fortune than Henry VII.,
was able to enter the Vatican at once.

Encircled by a crowd of heretics, reformers and Minorite
brethren, he convoked a parliament on the Capitol, asking
that the imperial crown might be conferred upon him by the
people, from whom alone he wished to receive it. And the
people proclaimed him their captain, senator and emperor.
On the 17th of January his coronation took place in St Peter's.
But, as he had neither money nor practical sense, his method
of taxation and the excesses committed by himself and his
over-excited philosophers speedily aroused the popular discontent.
His ecclesiastical vicar, Marsilio of Padua, and
Giovanni Janduno placarded the walls with insulting manifestoes
against the pope, whom the Minorites stigmatized as a heretic
and wished to depose. In April Louis twice assembled the
parliament in St Peter's Square, and, after obtaining its sanction
to several anti-papal edicts, declared John XXII. degraded
and deposed as a heretic. This was a very strange and novel
spectacle, the more so that, as was speedily proved, the Romans
were stirred by no anti-Catholic spirit, no yearning for religious
reform. Jacopo Colonna, a canon of the Lateran, was able
to make his way into Rome with four masked companions, to
publicly read, at the top of his voice and before a great multitude,
the excommunication launched against the emperor by the
deposed pope, to traverse the entire city, and to withdraw unmolested
to Palestrina. Meanwhile the emperor contented
himself with decreeing that henceforth the popes must reside
in Rome,—that if, when invited, they should fail to come
they would be thereby held deposed from the throne. As a
logical consequence, proceedings were immediately begun for
the election of the new pope, Nicholas V., who on the 12th of
May was proclaimed by the popular voice in St Peter's Square,
and received the imperial sanction. But this ephemeral
drama came to an end when the emperor departed with his
antipope on the 4th of August. This caused the immediate
downfall of the democratic government. Bertoldo Orsini, who
had returned to Rome with his Guelphs, and Stefano Colonna
were elected senators, and confirmed in the office by Cardinal
Giovanni Orsini in the name of the pope. A new parliament
cancelled the emperor's edicts, and had them burnt by the
public executioner. Later, Nicholas, the antipope, went with
a rope about his neck to make submission to John XXII., and
Louis promised to disavow and retract all that he had done
against the church, provided the sentence of excommunication
were withdrawn. This, however, was refused. Never had
the empire fallen so low. Meanwhile King Robert was again
supreme in Rome, and, being re-elected senator, appointed
vicars there as before. Anarchy reigned. The city was torn
by factions, and the provinces rebelled against the French
representatives of the pope, who, in their ignorance of Italian
affairs, were at a loss how to act.

And after the election of Benedict XII. (1334-42) confusion
reached so great a pitch that, on the expiration of Robert's
senatorial term, the Romans named thirteen heads of regions
to carry on the government with two senators, while the king
still sent vicars as before. The people, for the sake of peace,
once more granted the supremacy of the senate to the pope,
and he nominated two knights of Gubbio, Giacomo di Cante
dei Gabrielli and Bosone Novello dei Gabrielli, who were
succeeded by two other senators the following year. But in
Reconstitution of the republic.
1339 the Romans attacked the Capitol, named two
senators of their own choice, re-established a
democratic government, and sent ambassadors to Florence
to ask for the ordinances of justice (ordinamentidella giustizia), by which that city had broken the power
of the nobles, and also that a few skilled citizens should lend
their help in the reconstitution of Rome. Accordingly some
Florentines came with the ordinamenti, some portions of which
may be recognized in the Roman statutes, and, after first rearranging
the taxes, elected thirteen priors of the gilds, a gonfalonier
of justice, and a captain of the people after the Florentine
manner. But there was a dissimilarity in the conditions of the
two cities. The gilds having little influence in Rome, the
projected reform failed, and the pope, who was opposed to it, re-elected
the senators. Thereupon public discontent swelled,
and especially when, by the foundation of the papal palace of
Avignon, it was evident that Benedict XII. had no intention of
restoring the Holy See to Italy. This pope was succeeded in
1342 by Clement VI. (1342-52), and King Robert in 1343 by
his niece Joanna; and the latter event, while plunging the
kingdom in anarchy, likewise aggravated the condition of Rome.
For not only were the Neapolitan sovereigns still very powerful
there, but the principal Roman nobles held large fiefs across
the Neapolitan borders.

Shortly before this another revolution in Rome had re-established
the government of the thirteen elders and the
Cola di Rienzi.
two senators. The people, being anxious to show
their intention of respecting the papal authority, had
dispatched to Avignon as ambassador of the republic,
in 1343, a man destined to make much noise in the world. This
was Cola di Rienzi, son of a Roman innkeeper, a notary, and
an impassioned student of the Bible, the fathers, Livy, Seneca,
Cicero, and Valerius Maximus. Thoroughly imbued with a
half pagan, half Christian spirit, he believed that he had a
divinely inspired mission to revive the ancient glories of Rome.
Of handsome presence, full of fantastic eloquence, and stirred
to enthusiasm by contemplation of the ruined monuments of
Rome, he harangued the people with a stilted oratory that enchanted
their ears. He hated the nobles, because one of his
brothers had been killed by them; he loved the republic, and
in its name addressed a stately Latin speech to the astonished
pope, and, offering him the supreme power, besought his instant
return to Rome. He also begged him to allow the city to celebrate
a jubilee every fifty years, and then, as a personal request,
asked to be nominated notary to the urban chamber. The
pope consented to everything, and Rienzi communicated this
good news to Rome in an emphatically worded epistle. After
Easter, in 1344, he returned to Rome, and found to his grief
that the city was a prey to the nobles. He immediately began
to admonish the latter, and then, draped in a toga adorned
with symbols, exhibited and explained allegorical designs to
the people, and announced the speedy restoration of the
past grandeur of Rome. Finally he and a few burghers and
merchants, whom he had secretly inflamed by his discourses,
made a solemn vow to overthrow the nobility and consolidate the
republic. The moment was favourable, owing to the anarchy
of Naples, the absence of the pope, the weakness of the empire
and the disputes of the barons, although the latter were still
very potent and constituted, as it were, a separate government
opposed to that of the people. Rienzi, having gained the pope's
ecclesiastical vicar to his side, passed in prayer the night of the
10th of May 1347, placing his enterprise under the protection
of the Holy Spirit, and the following day marched to the
Capitol, surrounded by his adherents, convoked a parliament
of the people, and obtained its sanction for the following proposals:—that
all pending lawsuits should be at once decided;
that justice should be equally administered to all; that every
region should equip one hundred foot soldiers and twenty-five
horse; that the dues and taxes should be rearranged; that the
forts, bridges and gates of the city should be held by the rector
of the people instead of by the nobility; and that granaries
should be opened for the public use. On the same day, amid
general homage and applause, Rienzi was proclaimed head of
the republic, with the title of tribune and liberator of the Holy
Roman Republic, “by authority of the most merciful Lord
Jesus Christ.” The nobles withdrew scoffing but alarmed.
Rienzi engaged a body-guard of one hundred men, and assumed
the command of thirteen hundred infantry and three hundred
and ninety light horse; he abolished the senators, retained the
Thirteen and the general and special councils, and set the
administration on a new footing. These measures and the
prompt submission of the other cities of the state brought an
instant increase of revenue to Rome.

This revolution, as will be noted, was of an entirely novel
stamp. For its leader dispatched envoys to all the cities
of Italy, exhorting them to shake off the yoke of their tyrants,
and send representatives to the parliament convoked for the
1st of August, inasmuch as the liberation of Rome also implied
the “liberation of the sacred land of Italy.” In Rienzi's
judgment the Roman revolution must be, not municipal, but
national, and even in some points universal. And this idea
was welcomed with general enthusiasm throughout the peninsula.
Solemn festivals and processions were held in Rome; and,
when the tribune went in state to St Peter's, the canons met
him on the steps chanting the Veni, Creator Spiritus. Even
the pope, willingly or unwillingly, accorded his approval to
Rienzi's deeds. The provincial cities did homage to Rome
and her tribune, and almost all the rest of Italy gave him its
enthusiastic adherence. The ancient sovereign people seemed
on the point of resuscitation. And others besides the multitude
were fascinated and carried off their feet. Great men like
Petrarch were transported with joy. The poet lauded Cola
di Rienzi as a sublime and supernatural being, the greatest of
ancient and modern men. But it was soon evident that all
this enthusiasm was mainly factitious. On the 26th of July
a new parliament was called, and this decreed that all the rights
and privileges granted to the empire and church must now be
vested in the Roman people, from whom they had first emanated.
But on the convocation of the national parliament few representatives
obeyed the summons and the scheme was a failure.
All had gone well so long as principles only were proclaimed, but
when words had to be followed by deeds the municipal feeling
awoke and distrust began to prevail. Nevertheless, on the 1st
of August Rienzi assumed the spurs of knighthood and passed
a decree declaring that Rome would now resume her old jurisdiction
over the world, invoking the Holy Spirit upon Italy, granting
the Roman citizenship to all her cities, and proclaiming
them free in virtue of the freedom of Rome. This was a strange
jumble of the ancient Roman idea combined with the medieval.
It was a dream of Rienzi's brain, but it was also the dream of
Dante and Petrarch. The conception of the empire and the
history of Italy, particularly that of ancient and medieval
Rome, were inevitably preparing the way for the national idea.
This Rienzi foresaw, and this constitutes the true grandeur
of his character, which in other respects was not exempt from
pettiness and infirmity. He pursued his course, therefore, undismayed,
and had indeed gone too far to draw back. On the
15th of August he caused himself to be crowned tribune with
great pomp, and confirmed the rights of Roman citizenship to
all natives of Italy. But practical matters had also to be taken
into account, and it was here that his weakness and lack of
judgment were shown. The nobles remained steadily hostile, and
refused to yield to the charm of his words. Hence conflict was
unavoidable; and at first Rienzi succeeded in vanquishing the
Gaetani by means of Giovanni Colonna. He next endeavoured
to suppress the Guelph and Ghibelline factions, and to restore
Italy to “holy union” by raising her from her present
abasement.

The pope, however, was weary of toleration, and, coming
to terms with the nobles, incited them to war. They accordingly
moved from Palestrina, and on the 30th of November
were encamped before Rome. Rienzi now put forth his
energy. He had already called the militia to arms, and a
genuine battle took place in which eighty nobles, chiefly of the
Colonna clan, were left dead. This was a real catastrophe to
them, and the aristocracy never again achieved the rule of the
republic. But Rienzi's head was turned by this sudden success.
In great need of money, he began to play the tyrant by levying
taxes and exacting instant obedience. The papal legate saw
his opportunity and seized it, by threatening to bring a charge
of heresy against the tribune. Rienzi was dismayed. He
declared himself friendly to the pope and willing to respect his
authority; and he even sought to conciliate the nobles. At
this moment certain Neapolitan and Hungarian captains, after
levying soldiers with the tribune's consent, joined the nobles
and broke out in revolt. On their proving victorious in a preliminary
encounter with some of Rienzi's guards, the tribune
suddenly lost heart, resigned the power he had held for seven
months, and took refuge with a few trusty adherents in the
castle of St Angelo on the 15th December 1347. Thence he
presently fled to Naples, vainly hoping to find aid, and afterwards
disappeared for some time from the scene.

Meanwhile the Romans remained tranquil, intent on making
money by the jubilee; but no sooner was this over than disorders
broke out and the tyranny of the baronage recommenced.
To remedy this state of things, application was made to the
pope. He consulted with a committee of cardinals, who sought
the advice of Petrarch, and the poet suggested a popular
government,
to the complete exclusion of the nobles, since these,
he said, were strangers who ruined the city. The people had
already elected the Thirteen, and now, encouraged by these
counsels, on the 26th of December 1351 chose Giovanni Perrone
as head of the republic. But the new leader was unable to withstand
the hostilities of the nobles; and in September 1353
Francesco Baroncelli was elected tribune. He was a follower
of Rienzi, had been his ambassador to Florence and did little
beyond imitating his mode of government and smoothing the
way for his return.

Rienzi had spent two years in the Abruzzi, leading a life of
mystic contemplation on Monte Maiella. Then, in 1350, he had
gone to Prague and endeavoured to convert to his ideas the yet
uncrowned emperor Charles IV. When apparently on the point
of success, he was sent under arrest to the new pope, Innocent VI.
(1352-62), a man of great shrewdness and practical sense. On
Rienzi's arrival at Avignon it became evident that his popularity
was still very great, and that it would be no easy task to dispose
of him. The Romans were imploring his return; Petrarch
lauded him as a modern Gracchus or Scipio; and the pope
finally released him from confinement. Innocent had decided
to send to Italy, in order to settle affairs and bring the state into
subjection to the church, that valiant captain and skilled
politician, Cardinal Albornoz. And, having no fear that the
latter's hand would be forced, he further decided that Rienzi
should be sent to give him the support of his own popularity in
Rome. In fact, directly the pair arrived Baroncelli was overthrown,
the supremacy of the senate granted to the pope and
the government confided to Albornoz, who, without concerning
himself with Rienzi, nominated Guido Patrizi as senator. He
then marched at the head of his troops against Giovanni, prefect
of Vico, and forced him to render submission at Montefiascone
on the 5th of June 1354. With the same promptitude and skill
he reduced Umbria and the Tuscan and Sabine districts, consented
to leave the privileges of the cities intact in return for
their recognition of the papal authority and planted fortresses
in suitable positions. In the meantime Rienzi's popularity was
increasing in Rome; without either money or arms, the ex-tribune
succeeded by his eloquence in winning over the two
Provençal leaders, brothers of the famous free captain Fra
Monreale; and, seduced by his promises and hopes, they
supplied him with funds. Then, profiting by his prestige, the
apparent favour of the pope, and the sums received, he was able
to collect a band of five hundred soldiers of mixed nationalities
and returned towards Rome. On Monte Mario he was met by
the cavallerotti. On the 1st of August 1354 he entered the
Castello gate, took possession of the government, named Monreale's
two brothers his captains, and sent them to lay siege to
Palestrina, which was still the headquarters of the Colonna.
But then money ran short, and he again lost his head. Inviting
Fra Monreale to a banquet, he put him to death for the sake of
his wealth, and kept the two brothers in confinement. This act
excited general indignation. And when, after his ill-gotten
gains were spent, he again recurred to violence to fill his purse,
the public discontent was vented in a sudden revolt on the
8th of October. The people stormed the Capitol with cries of
“Death to the traitor.” Rienzi presented himself at a window
waving the flag of Rome. But the charm was finally broken.
Missiles were hurled at him; the palace was fired. He hid
himself in the courtyard, shaved his beard and, disguised as a
shepherd with a cloth over his head, slipped into the crowd and
joined in their cries against himself. Being recognized, however,
by the golden bracelets he had forgotten to remove, he was
instantly stabbed. For two days his corpse was left exposed
to the insults of the mob, and was then burned. Such was the
wretched end of the man who, at one moment, seemed destined
to fill the world with his name as the regenerator of Rome and
of Italy.

In all the Italian cities the overthrow of the aristocracy had
led to military impotence and pressing danger of tyranny. The
same thing had happened in Rome when the nobility, weakened
by the absence of church and empire, received its death-blow
from Rienzi. But, whereas elsewhere tyrants were gradually
arising in the citizen class, Rome was always in danger of
oppression by the pope. Nor was any aid available from the
empire, which had never recovered from its abasement under
Louis the Bavarian. In fact, when Charles of Luxemburg
came to Rome to be crowned, he was obliged to promise the
pope that he would not enter the city. On Easter day 1355
The popes seek to constitute a temporal kingdom.
he received the crown, and departed after counselling
the Romans to obey the pope. And the pontiffs had
greater need than ever of an established kingdom.
Their position in France was much endangered by
that country's disorder. New states were being
formed on all sides; the medieval unity was shattered;
and the shrunken spiritual authority of the church increased
her need of material strength. As Italian affairs stood, it
would be easy for the popes to found a kingdom, but their
presence was required in Rome before it could be firmly established.
The blood-stained sword of Albornoz had prepared
the way before them. In 1355-56 he vanquished the lords or
tyrants of Rimini, Fano, Fossombrone, Pesaro, Urbino and
other cities. And all these places had been so rudely oppressed
that the cardinal was often hailed as a liberator after subduing
their masters by fire and sword. But everywhere he had been
obliged to leave existing governments and rulers in statu quo
after exacting their oaths of fealty. Thus the state was still
dissevered, and it was impossible to bind it together with the
pope at Avignon and Rome a republic. Bologna was still independent,
Ordelaffi still lord of Forli; Cesena and other cities
were still rebellious; and the Campagna was still in the hands
of the barons. Some places were ruled by rectors nominated
by the pope; at Montefiascone there was an ecclesiastical
rector, with a bench of judges, and a captain commanding a
mixed band of adventurers. Rome had submitted to the
haughty cardinal, but hated him mortally, and, on his departure
for Avignon in 1357 to assist the threatened pontiff, immediately
conceded to the latter the supremacy of the senate. And the
pope, instead of two senators, hastened to name a single one
of foreign birth. This was a shrewd device of Albornoz and
another blow to the nobles, with whom he was still at war.
Thus was inaugurated, by the nomination of Raimondo de'
Foreign senators.
Tolomei in 1358, a series of foreign senators, fulfilling
the functions of a podestà, and changed every six
months, together with their staff of judges, notaries
and knights. The people approved of this reform as being
inimical to the nobles and favourable to the preservation of
liberty. Hitherto the senators had been assisted, or rather
kept in check, by the thirteen representatives of the regions.
These were now replaced by seven reformers, in imitation of
the priors of Florence, the better to follow that city's example.
The reformers were soon the veritable chiefs of the republic.
They first appeared in 1360, were either popolani or cavallerotti,
and were elected by ballot every three months. When Albornoz
returned to Italy, although desirous to keep Rome in the same
subjection as the other cities, he had first to vanquish Ordelaffi
and reduce Bologna. The latter enterprise was the more
difficult task, and provoked a lengthy war with Matteo Visconti
of Milan. Thus Rome, being left to herself, continued to be
governed by her reformers; and the nobles, already shut out
from power, were also excluded from the militia, which had been
reorganized, like that of Florence, on the democratic system.
The banderesi.
Three thousand men, mostly archers, were enrolled
under the command of two banderesi, “in the likeness,”
says M. Villani, “of our gonfaloniers of the
companies,” with four antepositi constituting a supreme council
of war. And the whole body was styled the “Felix Societas
Balestrariorum et Pavesatorum.” It was instituted to support
the reformers and re-establish order in the city and Campagna,
to keep down the nobles and defend the republic. It fulfilled
these duties with much, and sometimes excessive, severity.
Banderesi and antepositi had seats in the special council beside
those of the reformers, as, in Florence, the gonfaloniers of the
companies were seated beside the priors. Later these officials
constituted the so-called signoria dei banderesi. In 1362, the
Romans having subjected Velletri, which was defended by the
nobles, the latter made a riot in Rome. Thereupon the banderesi
drove them all from the city, killed some of their kindred, and
did not even spare the cavallerotti. The fight became so furious
that from gate to gate all Rome was in arms, and even mercenaries
were hired. But in the end renewed submission was made
to the pope.

On the death of Innocent VI. in 1362, an agreement was
concluded with his successor, Urban V. (1362-70), also a Frenchman,
who was obliged to give his sanction to the government
of the reformers and banderesi. And then, Albornoz being
recalled in disgrace to Avignon, and afterwards sent as legate
to Naples, these Roman magistrates were able, with or without
the co-operation of the foreign senator, to rule in their own
way. They did justice on the nobles by hanging a few more;
and they defended the city from the threatening attacks of
the mercenaries, who had now become Italy's Worst foes. It
was at this period that the Roman statutes were revised and
rearranged in the compilation erroneously attributed by some
writers to Albornoz, which has come down to us supplemented
by alterations of a later date.

But now the popes, being no longer in safety at Avignon,
really decided to return to Italy. Even Urban V. had to pay
ransom to escape from the threatened attacks of the free companies.
The Romans implored his return, and he was further
urged to it by the Italian literati, with Petrarch at their head.
In April 1367 he finally quitted Avignon, and, entering Rome on
the 16th of October, was given the lordship of the city. Cardinal
Albornoz had fallen mortally ill at Viterbo, but, though unable
to accompany the pope to Rome, had, before dying, suggested
Urban V. begins to destroy the republic.
his course of action. Certainly Urban showed much
acumen in profiting by the first burst of popular
enthusiasm to effect quick and dexterous changes in
the constitution of the republic. After naming a
senator, he abolished the posts of reformers and
banderesi, substituting three conservators, or rather a species
of municipal council, alone charged with judicial and administrative
powers, which has lasted to the present day. The
thirteen leaders of the regions and the consuls of the gilds still
sat in the councils, which were left unsuppressed. But all real
power was in the hands of the pope, who, in Rome, as in his
other cities, nominated the principal magistrates. Thus, by
transforming political into civil institutions and concentrating
the supreme authority in his own grasp, Urban V. dealt a
mortal blow to the liberties of Rome. Yet he felt no sense of
security among a people who, after the first rejoicings over the
return of the Holy See, were always on the brink of revolt.
Besides, he felt himself a stranger in Italy, and was so regarded.
Accordingly, in April 1370 he decided to return to France;
on the 20th of that month he wrote from Viterbo that no
change was to be made in the government; and he died in
Avignon on the 19th of December.

The Romans retained the conservators, conferring on them
the political power of the reformers; they re-established the
Re-establishment of the republic and the banderesi.banderesi with the Florentine title of executoresjustitiae and the four antepositi with that of consiliarii.
Thus the “Felix Societas Balestrariorum et
Pavesatorum Urbis” was restored, and the two councils and the
met as before. The new French pope, Gregory XI.
(1370-78), had to be content with obtaining supremacy
over the senate and the possession of the castle of St Angelo.
It was a difficult moment for him. The Florentines had come
to an open rupture with his legates, and had adopted the
expedient of inviting all the cities of the Roman state to redeem
their lost freedom. Accordingly, in 1375 many of them rose
against the legates, who were mostly French and regarded
with dislike as foreigners. Florentine dispatches, full of
classical allusions and chiefly composed by the famous scholar
Secretary Coluccio Salutati, were rapidly sent in all directions.
Those addressed to the Romans were specially fervid, and
emphatically appealed to their patriotism and memories of
the past. But the Romans received them with doubt and
mistrust, for they saw that the revolution threatened to dismember
the state, by promoting the independence of every
separate city. Besides, while maintaining their republic, they
also desired the pope's presence in Rome. Nevertheless, they
went with the current to the extent of reforming their constitution.
In February 1376 they nominated Giovanni Cenci
captain of the people, and gave him uncontrolled power over
the towns of the patrimony and the Sabine land. The conservators,
with their new political authority, the executores,
the antepositi and the two councils were all preserved, and a
new magistracy was created, the “Tres Gubernatores Pacis
et Libertatis Reipublicae Romanae.” This answered to the
Eight (afterwards Ten) of War in Florence, likewise frequently
called the Eight of Liberty and Peace. It was this Council
of Eight that was now directing the war against the pope and
braving his sentence of excommunication; and their fiery
zeal had won them the title of the Holy Eight from the
Florentines.

Realizing that further absence would cost him his state,
Gregory XI. quitted Avignon on the 13th of September 1376,
and, reaching Corneto in December, dispatched to Rome three
legates, who, on the 21st of the month, concluded an agreement
with the parliament. The people gave up the gates, the
fortresses and the Trastevere, and promised that if the pope
returned to Rome he should have the same powers which had
been granted to Urban V. But, on his side, he must pledge
himself to maintain the executores and their council, and allow
the Romans the right of reforming the banderesi, who would
then swear fealty to him. The terms of this peace and the
pope's epistles clearly prove that the two councils still exercised
their functions, that the banderesi were still the virtual heads
of the government, and that their suppression was not contemplated.
In fact, when the pope made his entry on the
17th of January 1377, accompanied by two thousand armed men,
he perceived that there was much public agitation, that the
Romans did not intend to fulfil their agreement, and that the
government of the banderesi went on as before. Accordingly,
after naming Gomez Albornoz, a nephew of the deceased
cardinal, to the office of senator, he retired to Anagni, and
remained there until November 1377. The Romans presently
waited on him with conciliating offers, and begged him to
negotiate a peace for them with the prefect of Vico. In fact,
the treaty was concluded at Anagni in October, and on the
10th of November confirmed in Rome by the general council.
The meeting was held in the great hall of the Capitol,
ubi consilia generalia urbis fieri solent, in the presence of
all the members of the republican government. But the
pope was enraged by the survival of this government, and,
being worn out by the persistent hostility of the Florentines,
which reduced his power to a low ebb, had determined to
make peace, when surprised by death on the 27th of March
1378.

The next pope, Urban VI. (1378-89), a Neapolitan, was
the spirit of discord incarnate. His election was not altogether
regular: the French party among the cardinals was against
him; and the people were ripe for insurrection. But, regardless
of all this, Urban threatened the cardinals in his first consistory,
saying that church reform must begin with them;
and he used the same tone with the people, reproving them
for failing to suppress the banderesi. In consequence of this
the cardinals of the French party, assembling at Fondi, elected
the antipope Clement VII. (1378-94) and started a long and
painful schism in the church. Clement resided in Avignon,
while Urban in Rome was engaged in opposing Queen
Joanna I. of Naples and favouring Charles of Durazzo, who,
on conquering the Neapolitan kingdom, was made gonfalonier
of the church and senator of Rome, where he left a vicar as
his deputy. Shortly afterwards the pope went to Naples,
and made fierce war on the king. Then, after many adventures,
during which he tortured and put to death several cardinals
whom he suspected of hostile intentions, he returned to Rome,
where the utmost disorder prevailed. The conservators and
Urban VI. undertakes the destruction of the republic.
the banderesi were still at the head of the government,
and, the pope speedily falling out with them,
a riot ensued, after which he excommunicated the
banderesi. These at last made submission to him,
and Urban VI. became master of Rome before his
death in 1389. He was succeeded by Boniface IX.
(1389-1404), another Neapolitan, but a man of greater shrewdness
and capacity. His first act was to crown Ladislaus
king of Naples, and secure the friendship and protection of
this ambitious and powerful prince. In all the principal
cities of the state he chose the reigning lords for his vicars.
But he allowed Fermo, Ascoli and Bologna the privilege
of assuming their own vicariate for twenty-five years. And,
as these different potentates and governments had only to
pay him an annual tribute, all parties were satisfied, and
the pope was able to bestow at least an appearance of order
and unity on his state. But fresh tumults soon arose, partly
because the conservators and banderesi sought to govern on
their own account, and especially because the pope seems
for a time to have omitted naming the senator. Boniface was
a prudent man; he saw that events were turning in his favour,
now that throughout Italy liberty was tottering to its fall, and
bided his time. He was satisfied for the moment by obtaining
a recognition of the immunities of the clergy, rendering them
solely amenable to ecclesiastical tribunals, and thus distinguishing
the powers of the church from those of the state in Rome.
The republic also pledged itself neither to molest the prelates
nor to levy fresh contributions on them towards repairing
the walls, to aid in recovering the estates of the church in
Tuscia, and to try to conciliate the baronage. This concordat,
concluded with the conservators and banderesi on the 11th of
September 1391, was also confirmed on the 5th of March
1392 by the heads of the regions, together with a fresh treaty
binding both parties to furnish a certain number of armed
men to combat the prefect of Vico and the adherents of the
antipope at Viterbo. With the exception of this city, Orchi
and Civita Vecchia, all other conquered territory was to belong
to the republic. But the Romans soon discovered that they
were playing into the hands of the pope, who kept everything
for himself, without even paying the troops. Upon this a riot
broke out; Boniface fled to Perugia in October 1392, and resolved
to exact better terms when next recalled to Rome. Meanwhile
the Romans subdued the prefect, captured Viterbo, and, being
already repentant, handed it over to the pope and implored
his return. He then proposed his own terms, which were
Boniface IX. continues the destruction of the republic.
approved, not only by the conservators, banderesi
and four councillors, but also by the special council
and by the unanimous vote of a general assembly,
composed of the above-mentioned authorities, heads
of regions, other officials and a hundred citizens
(8th August 1393). These terms prescribed that the
pope was to elect the senator, and that, on his failing
so to do, the conservators would carry on the government
after swearing fealty to him. The senatorial function was
to be neither controlled nor hampered by the banderesi. The
immunities of the clergy were to be preserved, and all church
property was to be respected by the magistrates. The expenses
of the pope's journey were to be paid, and he was to be escorted
to Rome in state. Boniface tried to complete his work by
abolishing the banderesi, the last bulwarks of freedom; but
the people, although weakened and weary, made efforts to
preserve them and, although their fall was inevitable, the
struggle went on for some time.

During the spring of 1394 the banderesi provoked an insurrection
in which the pope's life was endangered; it was only
saved by the arrival of King Ladislaus, who came from Naples
with a large force in the early autumn. But for the Neapolitan
soldiery Boniface could not have withstood the long series of
revolts that continually exposed him to fresh perils and the
anxiety caused by the persistent schism of the church. The
death of Clement VII. in 1394 was followed by the election of
another antipope, Benedict XIII. But a new jubilee was in
prospect for the year 1400, and this was always an efficacious
Fall of the banderesi and of the republic.
means of bending the will of the Romans. Depending
upon this and the assistance of Ladislaus, Boniface
not only demanded full powers to nominate senators
(none having been recently elected), but insisted on
the suppression of the banderesi. Both requests
were granted; but, directly Angelo Alaleoni was made senator,
a conspiracy was hatched for the re-establishment of the
banderesi. However, the pope felt sure of his strength; the
plot was discovered and the conspirators were beheaded on
the stairs of the Capitol. This proved the end of the banderesi
and of the liberties of Rome. The government was again
directed by an alien senator together with three conservators;
but the latter were gradually deprived of their political
attributes, and became mere civil officers. The militia, regions,
gilds and other associations now rapidly lost all political
importance, and before long were little more than empty names.
Thus in 1398 the Romans submitted to the complete sway
of the pope, and in July of the same year the senator chosen
by him was Malatesta dei Malatesti of Rimini, one of a line of
tyrants, a valiant soldier, who was also temporal vicar and
captain-general of the church. Boniface continued to appoint
foreign senators during the rest of his life; he fortified the
castle of St Angelo, the Vatican and the Capitol; he stationed
galleys at the mouth of the Tiber, and proved himself in all
things a thoroughly temporal prince. He aggrandized all
his kindred, especially his brother, and, with the aid of his
senator, his armed force and the protection of Ladislaus,
succeeded in keeping down all the surviving nobles. In 1400,
however, these made an attempt to upset the government.
Niccolò Colonna forced his way into the city with cries of
“Popolo, popolo! death to Boniface!” But the Romans
had grown deaf to the voice of liberty; they refused to rise,
and the senator, a Venetian named Zaccaria Trevisan, behaved
with much energy. Colonna and his men had to beat a swift
retreat to Palestrina. A charge of high treason was immediately
instituted against him, and thirty-one rebels were beheaded.
The pope then proclaimed a crusade against all the Colonna,
and sent a body of two thousand men and some of the Neapolitan
soldiery to attack them. Several of their estates were seized
and devastated, but Palestrina continued to hold out, and on
the 7th of January 1401 the Colonna finally made submission
to the pope. Nevertheless, they obtained advantageous terms,
for Boniface left them their lands, appointed them vicars of
other territories, and made similar agreements with the Gaetani
and Orsini. In this way he became absolute master of Rome.
One chronicler remarks that “Romanis tanquam rigidus
imperator dominabatur,” and the same tone is taken by
others. But he did not succeed in putting an end to the
schism of the church, which was still going on when he died
in the Vatican on the 1st of October 1404.

Innocent VII. (1404-6) was the next pope. He too was a
Neapolitan, and on his election the people again rose in revolt
and refused to acknowledge him unless he consented to resign
the temporal power. But Ladislaus of Naples hastened to his
help, and an agreement was made which, under the cover of apparent
concessions, really riveted the people's chains. Rome was
recognized as the seat of the temporal and spiritual sovereignty
of the pope, and the pope continued to appoint the senator.
The people were to elect seven governors of the city, who were
to swear fealty to the pope and carry on the government in
conjunction with three other governors chosen by the pontiff
or Ladislaus. The stipulations of Boniface IX. concerning
ecclesiastical immunities were again confirmed. The barons
were forbidden to place more than five lances each at the service
of the people, and—which was the real gist of the covenant—the
people were henceforth forbidden to make laws or statutes
without the permission of the pope. The captain of the people,
deprived of his political and judicial functions and reduced to
a simple judge, was also to be chosen by the pope. But this
treaty, drawn up on the 27th of October 1404, was not signed
at the time, and many difficulties and disturbances arose when
its terms were to be put into effect. The Romans nominated
the seven governors, but, without waiting until the pope had
chosen three more, placed the state in their hands, and styled
them “governors of the liberty of the Roman Republic.” They
were, in fact, banderesi or reformatori under a new name. But
the attempt proved inefficacious, for, at the pope's first threat
of departure, the Romans made their submission, and the treaty
of October was subscribed on the 15th of May 1405. Nevertheless,
as it only bears the signatures of the “seven governors
of the liberty of the Roman Republic,” the pope would seem
to have made some concessions. His position was by no means
assured. Ladislaus was known to aspire to absolute dominion
in Italy, and, although willing to aid in suppressing the republic,
tried to prepare the way for his own designs, and frequently
held out a helping hand to the vanquished. On the 6th of
August fourteen influential citizens of Rome boldly presented
themselves at the Vatican, and in a threatening manner called
the pope to account for giving his whole attention to worldly
things, instead of endeavouring to put a stop to the schisms of
the church. But, on leaving his presence, they were attacked
by Luigi Migliorati, the pope's nephew, and notorious for his
violence, who killed eleven of their number, including several
heads of the regions and two of the governors. An insurrection
ensued, and the pope and his nephew fled to Viterbo. The
Colonna tried to profit by these events, and applied to Ladislaus,
who, hoping that the moment had come to make himself
master of Rome, sent the count of Troia thither with a troop
of three thousand horse. But the people, enraged by this
treachery, and determined not to fall under the yoke of Naples,
awoke for an instant to the memory of their past glories, and
bravely repulsed the Colonna and the Neapolitans. And, on
the speedy arrival of the Orsini with some of the papal troops,
the people voluntarily restored the papal government, and,
assembling the parliament, besought the pope to return on his
own terms. Accordingly, after first naming Francesco Panciatichi
of Pistoia to the senator ship, the pope came back on the
13th of March 1406, bringing his whole Curia with him, and also
the murderer Migliorati, who, triumphing in impunity, became
more arrogant than before. Here indeed was a proof that the
Romans were no longer worthy of liberty! And now, by means
of the Orsini, Innocent had only to reduce the Colonna and
other nobles raised to power by Ladislaus; nor was this very
difficult, seeing that the king, in his usual fashion, abandoned
them to their fate, and, making terms with the pope, was named
gonfalonier of the church and again protected her cause.

Innocent, dying in 1406, was succeeded by Gregory XII.,
a Venetian, who, as we shall presently see, resigned the chair
in 1415. On his accession, finding his state firmly established,
he seemed to be seriously bent on putting an end to the Great
Schism, and for that purpose arranged a meeting with the
antipope Benedict XIII. at the congress of Savona in 1408.
But Gregory and Benedict only used the congress as a pretext
for making war upon each other, and were urged on by Ladislaus,
who hoped by weakening both to gain possession of Rome,
where, although opposed by the Orsini, he had the support of
the Colonna. Gregory, who had then fied from Rome, made
a momentary attempt to win the popular favour by restoring
the government of the banderesi; but Ladislaus marched into
Ladislaus master of Rome.
Rome in June 1408 and established a senator of his
own. Meanwhile the two popes were continuing
their shameful struggle, and the council of Pisa (March
1409), in attempting to check it, only succeeded in raising up
a third pontiff, first in the person of Alexander V. (1409-10),
and then in the turbulent Baldassare Cossa, who assumed the
name of John XXIII. The latter began by sending a large
contingent to assist Louis of Anjou against Ladislaus. But the
enterprise failed, and, seeing himself deserted by all, Pope John
next embraced the cause of his foe by naming him gonfalonier
of the church. Thereupon Ladislaus concluded a sham peace,
and then, seizing Rome, put it to the sack and established his
own government there. Thus John, like the other two popes,
became a wanderer in Italy. In August 1414 Ladislaus died,
and was succeeded by the scandalous Queen Joanna II. The
Roman people promptly expelled the Neapolitans, and Cardinal
Isolani, John's legate, succeeding in rousing a reaction in favour
of the church, constituted a government of thirteen
“conservators” on the 19th of October.

In November 1414 the council of Constance assembled
and at last ended the schism by deposing all the popes
End of the schism, and election of Martin V.
and incarcerating John XXIII., the most turbulent
of the three. On the 11th of November 1417 Oddo
Colonna was unanimously elected to the papal chair;
he was consecrated in the cathedral on the 27th as
Pope Martin V., and, being acknowledged by all,
hastened without delay to take possession of his see. Meanwhile
disorder was at its height in Rome. The cardinal legate
Rome in a state of anarchy.
Isolani governed as he best could, while the castle
of St Angelo remained in the hands of the Neapolitans,
who still had a party in the city. In
this divided state of affairs, Braccio, a daring captain of
adventurers, nicknamed Fortebraccio, was inspired with the
idea of making himself master of Rome. Overcoming the feeble
resistance opposed to him, he succeeded in this on the 16th
of June 1416, and assumed the title of “Defensor Urbis.”
But Joanna of Naples dispatched Sforza, an equally valiant
captain, against him, and, without offering battle, Fortebraccio
withdrew on the 26th of August, after having been absolute
master of the Eternal City for seventy days. Sforza marched
in on the 27th and took possession of the city in the name of
Joanna. Martin V. instantly proved himself a good statesman.
He confirmed the legate Isolani as his vicar and
Giovanni Savelli as senator. Leaving Constance on the 16th of
May 1418, he reached Milan on the 12th of October, and slowly
proceeded on his journey. While in Florence he dispatched
his brother and nephew to Naples to make alliance with Joanna,
and caused her to be crowned on the 28th of October 1419 by
his legate Morosini. Upon this she promised to give up Rome
to the pope. Her general, Sforza, then entered the service of
Martin V., and compelled Fortebraccio, who was lingering in
a threatening attitude at Perugia, to make peace with the
pope. The latter entrusted Fortebraccio with the conduct
of the campaign against Bologna, and that city was reduced
to submission on the 15th of July 1420. The Romans had
already yielded to Martin's brother the legate, and now
earnestly besought the arrival of their pope. Accordingly,
he left Florence on the 19th of September 1420, and entered the
Vatican on the 28th. Rome was in ruins; nobility and burghers
were equally disorganized, the people unable to bear arms and
careless of their rights, while the battered walls of the Capitol
recorded the fall of two republics.

Martin V. had now to fulfil a far more difficult task than that
of taking possession of Rome. Throughout Italy municipal
The popes of the Renaissance.
freedom was overthrown, and the Roman Republic
had ceased to exist. The Middle Ages were ended;
the Renaissance was beginning. The universal unity
both of church and of empire was dissolved; the
empire was now Germanic, and derived its principal strength
from direct dominion over a few provinces. Independent
and national states were already formed or forming on all sides.
The papacy itself had ceased to claim universal supremacy
over the wor1d's governments, and the possession of a temporal
state had become essential to its existence. In fact, Martin V.
was the first of the series of popes who were real sovereigns,
and more occupied with politics than religion. Involved in
all the foreign intrigues, falsehoods and treacheries of Italian
diplomacy in the 15th century, their internal policy was imbued
with all the arts practised by the tyrants of the Renaissance,
and nepotism became necessarily the basis of their strength.
It was natural that men suddenly elected sovereigns of a new
country where they had no ties, and of which they had often
no knowledge, should seek to strengthen their position by
aggrandizing so-called nephews who were not infrequently
their sons.

Martin V. reduced the remains of the free Roman government
to a mere civil municipality. Following the method
The temporal kingdom of the popes raised on the ruins of the republic.
of the other despots of Italy, the old republican
institutions were allowed to retain their names
and forms, their administrative and some of their
judicial attributes, while all their political functions
were transferred to the new government. Order
was re-established, and justice rigidly observed.
Many rebellious places were subdued by the sword,
and many leaders of armed bands were hanged. The
pope, however, was forced to lean on his kinsmen the
Colonna and again raise them to power by grants of
vast fiefs both in his own state and the Neapolitan territory.
And, after first supporting Joanna II., who had assisted his
entry into Rome, he next sided with her adversary, Louis of
Anjou, and then with Alphonso of Aragon, the conqueror of
both and the constant friend of the pope, who at last felt safe
on his throne. Rome now enjoyed order, peace and security,
but had lost all hope of liberty. And when Martin died
(20th February 1431) these words were inscribed on his tomb,
“Temporum suorum felicitas.”

Eugenius IV. (1431-47) leant on the Orsini, and was fiercely
opposed by the Colonna, who excited the people against him.
A revolution expels the pope.
Accordingly on the 29th of May 1434 the Romans rose
in revolt to the old cry of “Popolo e popolo,” and
again constituted the rule of the seven governors
of liberty. The pope fled by boat down the Tiber,
and, being pursued with stones and shots, narrowly escaped
with his life. On reaching Florence, he turned his energies
to the recovery of the state. It was necessary to quell
the people; but, first of all, the Colonna and the clan of the
prefects of Vico, with their renewed princely power, had to
be overthrown. The Orsini were still his friends. Eugenius
entrusted the campaign to Patriarch (afterwards Cardinal)
Vitelleschi, a worthy successor of Albornoz, and of greater
ferocity if less talent. This leader marched his army towards
Rome, and, instantly attacking Giovanni, prefect of Vico,
captured and beheaded him. The family was now extinguished;
and its possessions reverting to the church, the greater part of
them were sold or given to Count Everso d'Anguillara, of the
house of Orsini. The prefecture, now little more than an
honorary title, was bestowed at will by the popes. Eugenius
gave it to Francesco, founder of the powerful line of the Gravina-Orsini.
Thus one noble family was raised to greatness while
another perished by the sword. Vitelleschi had already begun
to persecute the Colonna and the Savelli, and committed terrible
slaughter among them. Many castles were demolished, many
towns destroyed, and their inhabitants, driven to wander
famine-stricken over the Campagna, had to sell themselves as
slaves for the sake of bread. Finally the arrogant patriarch
marched into Rome, as into a conquered city, at the head of
his men, and the Romans crouched at his feet. The pope now
began to distrust him, and sent Scarampo, another prelate
of the same stamp, to take his place. This new commander
Eugenius IV. resumes possession.
soon arrived, and, perceiving that Vitelleschi
proposed to resist, had him surrounded by his soldiers,
who were obliged to use force to compel his surrender.
Vitelleschi was carried bleeding to the castle of St
Angelo, where he soon afterwards died. The pope
at last returned to Rome in 1443, and remained there quietly
till his death in 1447.

His successor Nicholas V. (1447-5 5) was a scholar solely
devoted to the patronage of literati and artists. During his
reign there was a fresh attempt to restore the republic, but it
was rather prompted by literary and classical enthusiasm
than by any genuine patriotic ardour. Political passions
Conspiracy of Stefano Porcari.
and interests had ceased to exist. The conspiracy
was headed by Stefano Porcari, a man of the people,
who claimed to be descended from Cato. He had
once been captain of the people in Florence, and was
made podestà of Bologna by Eugenius IV. He was a
caricature of Cola di Rienzi, and extravagantly proud of his
Latin speeches in honour of ancient republican liberty. The
admiration of antiquity was then at its height, and Porcari
found many enthusiastic hearers. Directly after the death of
Eugenius IV. he made a first and unsuccessful attempt to proclaim
the republic. Nevertheless Nicholas V., with the same
indulgence for scholars that had prompted him to pardon
Valla for denying the temporal power of the papacy and laughing
to scorn the pretended donation of Constantine, freely pardoned
Porcari and named him podestà of Anagni. He filled this
office with credit, but on his return to Rome again began to
play the agitator, and was banished to Bologna with a pension
from the pope. Nicholas V. had conferred all the state offices
upon priests and abbots, and had erected numerous fortresses.
Hence there were many malcontents in Rome, in communication
with Porcari at Bologna, and ready to join in his plot.
Arms were collected, and on the day fixed he presented himself
to his fellow-conspirators adorned with rich robes and a gold
chain, and harangued them in Latin on the duty of freeing
their country from the yoke of the priests. His design was to
set fire to the Vatican on the 6th of January 1453, the feast of
the Epiphany; he and his followers were to seize the pope,
the cardinals and the castle of St Angelo. But Nicholas
received timely warning; the conspirators' house was surrounded;
and Porcari himself was seized while trying to escape,
confined in the castle of St Angelo, and put to death with nine
of his companions on the 9th of January. Others shortly
suffered the same fate.

Under Calixtus III. and Pius II. affairs went on quietly
enough, but Paul II. (1464-71) had a somewhat troubled
reign. Yet he was a skilled politician. He re-ordered the
finances and the courts of justice, punished crime with severity,
was an energetic foe to the Malatesta of Rimini, put an
end to the oppression exercised in Rome by the wealthy and
arrogant house of Anguillara, and kept the people in good
humour with continual festivities. But—and this was a grave
defect at that period—he extended no favour to learning, and,
by driving many scholars from the curia to make room for his
own kinsmen, brought a storm about his ears. At that time
the house of Pomponio Leto was the rendezvous of learned
men and the seat of the Roman Academy. Leto was an
enthusiast of antiquity; and, as the members of the Academy
all assumed old Latin names, they were suspected of a design
Men of learning persecuted on suspicion of republican tendencies.
to re-establish paganism and the republican government.
It is certain that they all inveighed against
the pope; and, as the latter was no man of half
measures, during the carnival of 1468 he suddenly
imprisoned twenty Academicians, and even subjected
a few of them to torture. Pomponio Leto, although
absent in Venice, was also arrested and tried; but he
exculpated himself, craved forgiveness, and was set
at liberty. His friends were also released, for the charge of
conspiracy proved to be unfounded. Certain members of
the Academy, and notably Platina in his Lives of thePopes, afterwards revenged themselves by stigmatizing Paul II.
as the persecutor of philosophy and letters. But he was no more
a persecutor than a patron of learning; he was a politician,
the author of some useful reforms, and solely intent on the
consolidation of his absolute power. Among his reforms may
be classed the revision of the Roman statutes in 1469, for the
purpose of destroying the substance while preserving the form
of the old Roman legislation, and entirely stripping it of all
political significance. In fact the pope's will was now absolute,
and even in criminal cases he could trample unhindered
on the common law.

There was still a senator of Rome, whose nomination was
entirely in the hands of the pope, still three conservators, the
heads of the rioni, and an elected council of twenty-six citizens.
Now and then also a shadowy semblance of a popular assembly
was held to cast dust in the eyes of the public, but even this was
not for long. All these officials, together with the judges of the
Capitol, retained various attributes of different kinds. They
administered justice and gave sentence. There were numerous
tribunals all with undefined modes of procedure, so that it was
very difficult for the citizens to ascertain in which court justice
should be sought. But in last resort there was always the
supreme decision of the pope. Thus matters remained to the
time of the French Revolution.

For the completion of this system a final blow had to be dealt
to the aristocracy, whose power had been increased by nepotism;
and it was dealt by bloodshed under the three following popes—Sixtus
IV. (1471-84), Innocent VIII. (1484-92) and Alexander
VI. (1492-1503)—each of whom was worse than his predecessor.
The first, by means of his nephews, continued the slaughter of
the Colonna, sending an army against them, devastating their
estates at Marino, and beheading the protonotary Lorenzo
Colonna. Innocent VIII. was confronted by the power of the
Orsini, who so greatly endangered his life by their disturbances
in the city that he was only saved by an alliance with Naples.
Neither peace nor order could be lastingly established until
these arrogant barons were overthrown. This task was accomplished
by the worst of the three pontiffs, Alexander VI. All
know how the massacre of the Orsini was compassed, almost
simultaneously, by the pope in Rome and his equally iniquitous
son, Caesar Borgia, at Sinigaglia (1502). This pair dealt the
last blow to the Roman aristocracy and the tyrants of Romagna,
and thus the temporal dominion of the papacy was finally
assured. The republic was now at an end; it had shrivelled
to a civil municipality. Its institutions, deprived of all practical
value, lingered on like ghosts of the past, subject from century
to century to unimportant changes. The history of Rome is
henceforth absorbed in that of the papacy.

Nevertheless the republic twice attempted to rise from its
grave, and on the second occasion gave proofs of heroism
Post-medieval Rome.
worthy of its most glorious past. It was first
resuscitated in February 1798, by the influence of the medieval
French Revolution, and the French constitution of R°m"the
year III. was rapidly imitated. Rome had again two
councils—the tribunate and the senate, with five consuls constituting
the executive power. But in the following year,
owing to the military reverses of the French, the government
of the popes was restored until 1809, when Napoleon I. annexed
to his empire the States of the Church. Rome was then
governed by a consulta straordinaria—a special commission—with
the municipal and provincial institutions of France. In
1814 the papal government was again reinstated, and the old
institutions, somewhat modified on the French system, were
recalled to life. Pius IX. (1846-77) tried to introduce political
reforms, and to improve and simplify the old machinery of state;
but the advancing tide of the Italian revolution of 1848 drove
him from Rome; the republic was once more proclaimed, and
had a brief but glorious existence. Its programme was dictated
by Giuseppe Mazzini, who with Safii and Armellini formed the
triumvirate at the head of the government. United Italy was
to be a republic with Rome for her capital. The rhetorical idea
of Cola di Rienzi became heroic in 1849. The constituent
assembly (9th February 1849) proclaimed the fall of the temporal
power of the popes, and the establishment of a republic
which was to be not only of Rome but of all Italy. France,
although then herself a republic, assumed the unenviable task
of re-establishing the temporal power by force of arms. But
the gallant defence of Rome by Garibaldi covered the republic
with glory. The enemy was repulsed, and the army of the
Neapolitan king, sent to restore the pope, was also driven off.
Then, however, France dispatched a fresh and more powerful
force; Rome was vigorously besieged, and at last compelled
to surrender. On the 2nd of July 1849 the heroic general
departed from the city with some thousands of his followers.
Almost at the same time the constituent assembly proclaimed
in the Capitol the constitution of the Roman Republic. Immediately
afterwards the French restored the government of Pius IX.,
whose reign down to 1870 was that of an absolute sovereign.
Then the Italian government entered Rome (20th September
1870), proclaimed the national constitution (9th October 1870),
and the Eternal City became the capital of Italy. Thus the
scheme of national unity, the natural outcome of the history
of Rome and of Italy, impossible of accomplishment under the
rule of the popes, was finally achieved by the monarchy of
Savoy, which, as the representative and personification of
Italian interests, abolished the temporal power of the papacy
and made Rome the seat of government of the united country
(see Italy).

Among more recent works see especially M. Creighton, History ofthe Papacy (London, 1897); L. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste seit demAusgang des Mittelalters (Freiburg i/B., 1886, &c.), a learned work,
but written in an extremely clerical spirit; more impartial, although
written by a Jesuit, is P. H. Grisar's Storia di Roma e dei Papi nelMedio Evo (Italian edition, Rome, 1899, &c., not yet completed).
For the history of the republic in 1849 accounts will be found in all
the histories of the Italian Risorgimento (see under Italy). A very
important and complete work on the events of Rome in 1848-49 is
G. Trevelyan's Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Republic (London,
1907), which contains a full bibliography.

↑Mommsen, R.G. i. 43., Schwegler (R.G. i. 478) accepted the
tradition of a Sabine settlement on the Quirinal, and considered that
in the united state the Sabine element predominated. Volquardsen
(Rhein. Mus. xxxiii. 559) believed in a complete Sabine conquest;
and so did Zöller (Latium u. Rom, Leipzig, 1878), who, however,
placed it after the expulsion of the Tarquins.

↑The tradition connecting the Ramnes with Romulus and the
Tities with Tatius is as old as Ennius (Varro, L.L. v. 55). The best
authorities on the question, earlier than Schulze's epoch making
treatise, are Schwegler i. 505, and Volquardsen, Rhein. Mus.
xxxiii. 538.

↑It is possible that the curiae were originally connected with
separate localities; cf. such names as Foriensis, Veliensis (Fest.
174; Gilbert i. 213).

↑Niebuhr's supposition of ten gentes in each curia has nothing in
its favour but the confused statement of Dionysius as to the purely
military δέκαδες (Dionys. ii. 7; cf. Müller, Philologus, xxxiv. 96).

↑Rubino, Genz and Lange insisted on the hereditary patriarchal
character of the kingship, Ihne on its priestly side, Schwegler on its
elective. Mommsen came nearest to the view taken in the text, but
failed to bring out the nature of the compromise on which the
kingship rests.

↑“Patres auctores facti,” Livy i. 22; “patres fuere auctores,”
ibid. i. 32. In 336 B.C. (Livy viii. 12) the Publilian law directed that
this sanction should be given beforehand, “ante initum suffragium,”
and thus reduced it to a meaningless form (Livy i. 11). It is
wrongly identified by Schwegler with the “lex curiata de imperio,”
which in Cicero's day followed and did not precede election. According
to Cicero (De Rep. ii. 13, 21), the proceedings included, in addition
to the “creation” by the comitia curiata and the sanction of the
patres, the introduction by the king himself of a lex curiata conferring
the imperium and ausipicia; but this theory, though generally
accepted, is probably an inference from the practice of a later time,
when the creatio had been transferred to the comitia centuriata.

↑By far the most complete criticism of the traditional accounts
of the first four kings will be found in Schwegler's Röm. Geschichte,
vol. i.; compare also Ihne's Early Rome and Sir G. C. Lewis's
Credibility of Early Roman History. More recently, E. Pais (Storiad'Italia) has subjected the early legends to learned and often suggestive
criticism, but without attaining very solid results.

↑Ibid. i. 791, 792. He accepts as genuine, and as representing
the extent of Roman rule and connexions under the Tarquins,
the first treaty between Rome and Carthage mentioned by Polybius
(iii. 22); see, for a discussion of the question, Vollmer, Rhein. Mus.
xxxii. 614 seq.; Mommsen, Röm. Chronologie, 20; Dyer, Journ. ofPhilol. ix. 238.

↑The six centuries of horsemen were thenceforward known as
“primi secundique Ramnes” (Fest. 344; cf. Schwegler, i. 685 seq.)
It is possible that the reforms of Tarquinius Priscus were limited
to the cavalry.

↑This is recognized by Mommsen, Genz and Soltau, as against
Niebuhr, Schwegler and Ihne. Even in the later comitia centuriata
the traces of the originally military character of the organization
are unmistakable.

↑The century ceased to represent companies of one hundred
when the whole organization ceased to be military and became
exclusively political.

↑The property qualification for service in the first class is given
at 100,000 asses (Livy), for the second at 70,000, third 50,000,
fourth 25,000, fifth 11,000. It was probably originally a certain
number of cows, afterwards translated into terms of money; cf. W.
Ridgeway, The Origin of Coinage and Metallic Currency (Cambridge,
1892), p. 391. The same scholar, in his Who were the Romans? p. 17,
has pointed out the ethnical meaning of the varieties of armature
in the early army.

↑Livy ii. 9-14, Pliny (N.H. 34, 14) and Tacitus (Ann. iii. 72)
imply the existence of a tradition, possibly that of “Tuscan annalists,”
according to which Porsena actually made himself master of Rome.
The whole story is fully criticized by Schwegler (ii. 181 seq.) and
Zöller (Latium u. Rom, p. 180).

↑The traditional account of early republican history, given in
annalistic form by Livy, has been subjected to severe criticism in
recent times, notably by Pais in his Storia di Roma, vols. i. and ii.
It is true that the dearth of contemporary documents, especially for the
period before the sack of Rome by the Gauls (390 B.C.), must have
led to the filling of gaps by episodes drawn mainly from popular
traditions, and it is therefore impossible to guarantee the accuracy
of the narrative in details. Nevertheless, the general truth of the
story of Rome's early wars and constitutional growth cannot be
seriously impugned.

↑Schwegler (ii. 92) suggests that the dictatorship formed an
intermediate step between the monarchy and the consulate; cf.
Ihne, Röm. Forsch. 42.

↑That the consuls were originally styled praetores is stated by
Varro, ap. Non. p. 23, and Liv. iii. 55; cf. Cic. Legg. viii. 3, 8.
When additional praetors were created, the two originally appointed were
called praetores maximi and hence στρατηγοὶ ὕπατοι or
simply ὕπατοι in Greek.

↑The view of the patrum auctoritas here adopted is that taken by
T. Mommsen (Forsch. i.).

↑This is the view taken by the present writer, as against Schwegler
and others. For Ridgeway's theory, see above.

↑Beloch, 203. The importance of this duty of the allies is
expressed in the phrase, “socii nominisve Latini quibus ex formula
togatorum milites in terra Italia imperare solent.”

↑Four in South Etruria (387), two in the Pomptine territory (358),
two in Latium (332), two in the territory of the southern Volsci and
the Ager Falernus (313), two in the Aequian and Hernican territory
(299). The total of thirty-five was completed in 241 by formation of
the Velina and Quirina, probably in the Sabine and Picentine districts,
enfranchised in 268. See Beloch, 32.

↑This system was probably introduced in order to meet the charge
of the Celtic swordsmen, but it was perfected during the Samnite
wars. See Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 350 seq.; Daremberg-Saglio,
Dictionnaire des antiquités, ssv. “Legio” (Cagnat).

↑Some fresh light has been thrown upon the later campaigns in
Spain by the recently discovered fragment of an epitome of Livy
(Oxyrhynchus Papyri, iv. 668; Kornemann, Die neue Liviusepitomeaus Oxyrhynchos (1904).

↑North of the Drilo the former kingdom of Perseus's ally Genthius
had been treated as Macedon was in 167 (Livy xlv. 26); cf. Zippel,
Röm. Herrschaft in Illyrien (Leipzig, 1877). Epirus, which had been
desolated after Pydna (Livy xlv. 34), went with Greece; Marquardt
i. 319.

↑The most important change was the assimilation of the division by classes and centuries with that by tribes, a change possibly due to the censorship 534.of Gaius Flaminius in 220 (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 270). On this point see Comitia.⁠

↑A few offices of a more or less priestly character were still filled only by patricians, e.g.rex sacrorum, flamen Dialis. A plebeian first became curio maximus545. in 209 (Livy xxvii. 8).⁠

↑The lectio senatus was in the hands of the censors, but whether
before Sulla’s time their choice was subject to legal restrictions is
doubtful (see Senate).

↑“Ex auctoritate senatus.” The lex Flaminia agraria of 232
was an exception (Cic. De senect. 4; Polyb. ii. 21). In 167 B.C. a
praetor brought the question of war with Rhodes directly before
the assembly, but this was condemned as unprecedented (novomaloque exemplo, Liv. xlv. 21).

↑By declaring his action to be “contra rempublicam.” The
force of this anathema varied with circumstances. It had no legal
value.

↑Livy xxxviii. 42, of Cn. Manlius Vulso in Asia, 189 B.C.; cf.
also the position of the two Scipios.

↑Hence the same things, e.g. founding of colonies, are done in
one year by a Sctum., in another by a lex; cf. Cic. De rep.
ii. 32, 56; Phil. i 2, 6, of Antony as consul, “mutata omnia, nihil
per senatum, omnia per populum.”

↑There was no legal necessity, before Sulla's time, for getting
the senatus auctoritas for a proposal to the assembly.

↑See generally Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, i. bk. iii. cap. 6; Lange,
Röm. Alterth. vol. ii.; Ihne, bk. v. cap. i. The first law against
bribery at elections was passed in 181 B.C. (Livy xl. 19), and against
magisterial extortion in the provinces in 149 (Lex Calpurnia depecuniis repetundis). The senators had special seats allotted to them
in the theatre in 194 B.C.; Livy xxxiv. 44, 54.

↑The elder Cato complained of this as early as 195 B.C. (Liv.
xxxiv. 2).

↑Divorce was unknown at Rome until 231 B.C. (Dionys. ii. 25).
In the last century of the Republic it was of daily occurrence.

↑In the Ciceronian period the lower classes of Rome, with whom
the voting power in the comitia rested, were openly organized for
purposes of bribery by means of collegia and sodalicia, nominally
religious bodies.

↑Caesar had accumulated debts amounting to £800,000 by the
time of his praetorship. Catiline and his fellow-bankrupts, amongst
whom were several women, including a certain Sempronia who, as
we are told by Sallust, “danced and played better than an honest
woman need do,” hoped to bring about a cancelling of debts (novaetabulae).

↑To Spain alone more than 150,000 men were sent between 196
and 169 (Ihne iii. 319); compare the reluctance of the people to
declare war against Macedon in 200 B.C., and also the case of Spurius
Ligustinus in 171 (Livy, xlii. 34).

↑Traces of the work of the commission survive in the Miliarium
Popilianum, C.I.L. i. 551, in a few Gracchan “termini,” ib. 552,
553, 554, 555, in the “limites Gracchani,” Liber Colon., ed. Lachmann,
pp. 209, 210, 211, 229, &c. Compare also the rise in the numbers of
the census of 125 B.C.; Livy, Epit. lx.

↑Pompon. De orig. juris (Dig. i. 2, 2, 32); Vell. ii. 89. Compare
also Cicero, In Pison. 15, 35 with Cic. Pro Milone, 15, 39.
The increase was connected with his extension of the system of
quaestiones perpetuae, which threw more work on the praetors as
the magistrates in charge of the courts.

↑Tac. Ann. xi. 22. The quaestorship henceforward carried with
it the right to be called up to the senate. By increasing the number
of quaestors, Sulla provided for the supply of ordinary vacancies
in the senate and restricted the censors' freedom of choice in filling
them up. Fragments of the lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus
survive. See C.I.L. i. 108; Bruns, Fontes juris Romani (ed. 6),
p. 91.

↑He did propose to deprive several communities which had
joined Cinna of the franchise, but the deprivation was not carried
into effect; Cic. Pro domo, 30, 79.

↑The inadequacy of the comitia as a representative body was
increased by the unequal distribution of the new citizens amongst
the thirty-five tribes, each of which formed a single voting unit.
Some tribes represented only a thinly populated district in the
Campagna with one or two outlying communities, others included
large and populous territories. See Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 187;
Hermes, xxii. 101 sqq.

↑Sulla does not appear to have passed any general municipal
law; the necessary resettlement of the local constitutions after
the Social War was seemingly carried out by commissioners. The
fragment of a municipal charter found at Tarentum (Ephem. epigr.
ix. 1, Dessau, Inscr. Lat. sel. 6086) is probably a specimen of such
leges datae.

↑There was a lex Cornelia de provinciis ordinandis, but only
two of its provisions are known; (1) that a magistrate sent out
with the imperium should retain it till he re-entered the city (Cic. AdFam. i. 9, 25), a provision which increased rather than diminished
his freedom of action; (2) that an outgoing governor should leave
his province within thirty days after his successor's arrival (Cic.
Ad Fam. iii. 6. 3). A lex Cornelia de majestate contained, it is
true, a definition of treason evidently framed in the light of recent
experience. The magistrate was forbidden “exire de provincia,
educere exercitum, bellum sua sponte gerere, in regnum injussu
populi ac senatus accedere,” Cic. Pis. 21, 50. Sulla also added
one to the long list of laws dealing with extortion in the provinces.
But the danger lay, not in the want of laws, but in the want of
security for their observance by an absolutely autocratic proconsul.
The present writer cannot agree with those who would include
among Sulla's laws one retaining consuls and praetors in Rome for
their year of office and then sending them out to a province. This
was becoming the common practice before 81. After 81 it is invariable
for praetors, as needed for the judicial work, and invariable
but for two exceptions in the case of consuls; but nowhere
is there a hint that there had been any legislation on the subject,
and there are indications that it was convenience and not law
which maintained the arrangement. Mommsen, Hist. of Rome,
iv. 118 sqq.; Marquardt, Staatsverw. i. 518; cf. also Cic. Att. 8, 15;
“consules, quibus more majorum concessum est vel omnes adire
provincias.”

↑This was the work of L. Aurelius Cotta, praetor in this year.
The judices were to be taken in equal proportions from senators,
equites and tribuni aerarii. For the latter and for the law generally,
see Lange, R. Alt. iii. 1935 Greenidge, Legal Procedure of Cicero'sTime, pp. 443 sqq.; and article Aerarium. Compare also Cicero's
language, In Verr., Act. i. 1. The prosecution of Verres shortly
preceded the lex Aurelia.

↑Prof. Beesly has vainly endeavoured to show that Catiline and
not Caesar was the popular leader from 67 to 63. That this is the
inference intentionally conveyed by Sallust, in order to screen
Caesar, is true, but the inference is a false one.

↑The story is so told by Suetonius, Jul. 8. In Sallust, Cat. 18,
it appears as an intrigue originating with Catiline, and Caesar's
name is omitted.

↑That Caesar and Crassus had supported Catiline for the consulship
in 65 is certain, and they were suspected naturally enough of
favouring his designs in 63, but their complicity is in the highest
degree improbable.

↑Mommsen is throughout unfair to Cicero, as also are Drumann
and Professor Beesly. The best estimates of Cicero's political position
are those given by Mr Strachan-Davidson in his Cicero (1894),
and by Professor Tyrrell in his Introductions to his edition of Cicero's
Letters.

↑Both laws were carried in the concilium plebis. The first merely
reaffirmed the right of appeal, as the law of Gaius Gracchus had done.
The second declared Cicero to be already by his own act in leaving
Rome “interdicted from fire and water”—a procedure for which
precedents could be quoted. Clodius kept within the letter of the
law.

↑Cicero's speech Pro Sestio gives expression to these feelings; it
contains a passionate appeal to all good citizens to rally round the
old constitution. The acquittal of Sestius confirmed his hopes.
See Ad Q. Fr. ii. 4.

↑A dictatorship was talked of in Rome; Plut. Pomp. 54; Cic.
Ad Q. Fr. iii. 8. Cicero himself anticipated Augustus in his picture
of a princeps civitatis sketched in a lost book of the De republica,
written about this time, which was based upon his hopes of what
Pompey might prove to be; Ad Att. viii. 11; August. De civ. Dei, v. 13.

↑For the rights of the question involved in the controversy between
Caesar and the senate, see Mommsen, Rechtsfrage zw. Caesar and d.Senat; Guiraud, Le Différend entre César et le Sénat (Paris, 1878),
and the article Caesar.

↑Cicero severely censures Pompey for abandoning Italy, but
strategically the move was justified by the fact that Pompey's
strength lay in the East, where his name was a power, and in his
control of the sea. Politically, however, it was a blunder, as it
enabled Caesar to pose as the defender of Italy.

↑On this, as on many other points connected with Caesar, divergence
has here been ventured on from the views expressed by
Mommsen in his brilliant chapter on Caesar (Hist. of Rome, bk. v.
cap. xi.). Too much stress must not be laid on the gossip retailed
by Suetonius as to Caesar's early intentions.

↑Cicero vividly expresses the revulsion of feeling produced by
Caesar's energy, humanity and moderation on his first appearance
in Italy. Compare Ad Att. vii. 11, with Ad Att. viii. 13.

↑Dio xliii. 44. For this use of the title Imperator, see Mommsen,
Hist. of Rome. v. 332, and note.

↑See Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, v. 333, and Ranke, Weltgeschichte,
ii. 319 seq. According to Appian ii. 110, and Plutarch, Caes. 64,
the title rex was only to be used abroad in the East, as likely to
strengthen Caesar's position against the Parthians.

↑Ovid, Fasti, i. 589. On a coin of Asia Minor Augustus is styled
“libertatis P. R. vindex.” The 13th of January, 27 B.C., was
marked in the calendar as the day on which the republic was restored
(C.I.L. i. p. 384).

↑The explanation of princeps as an abbreviated form of
princeps senatus is quite untenable. For its real significance,
see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 774; Pelham, Journ. of Phil. vol. viii.
It is not an official title.

↑He was offered the dictatorship, a life-consulship, a “cura legum
et morum.” It is stated by Suetonius (Aug. 53) and Dio (liv. 10)
that he accepted the last named; but this is disproved by his own
language in the Mon. Anc. (i. 31); cf. Pelham, Journ. of Philol.
xvii. 47.

↑Dio liii. 32. Part of the law by which the rights essential
to the principate were conferred upon Vespasian is extant; see
Rushforth, Latin Historical Inscriptions, No. 70 (the Lex de imperioVespasiani).

↑On these rights, the latter of which was not exercised in the case
of the consulship until the close of Nero's reign, see Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 916-28; Tac. Ann. i. 14, 15, 81; Suet. Aug. 56; Dio
lviii. 20.

↑For a consular senatorial province and for the more important
of the imperial legateships.

↑Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 82 sqq. Six months was the usual term down
to the death of Nero; we have then four or two months; in the
3rd century two is the rule. The consuls who entered on office
on the 1st of January were styled consules ordinarii, and gave their
name to the year, whilst the others were distinguished as consulessuffecti or minores; Dio Cass. xlviii. 35.

↑Plin. Epp. i. 23, “inanem umbram et sine honore nomen.”
There are a few instances of the exercise by the tribunes of their
power of interference within the senate; Tac. Ann. i. 77, vi. 47,
xvi. 26; Plin. Epp. ix. 13.

↑Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 939 sqq. The power was derived from
the censorial authority. Domitian was censor for life; Suet. Dom.
8. After Nerva it was exercised as falling within the general
authority vested in the princeps; Dio liii. 17.

↑The praefectus urbi, unlike the other imperial prefects, was always
a senator. He commanded the three cohortes urbanae, which preserved
order in the city, and possessed a power of jurisdiction which
tended to increase in importance. The office, which was only temporary
under Augustus, became a permanent one under his successor.

↑Besides the cohortes urbanae mentioned above, the nine regiments
of the imperial guard (cohortes praetorianae) were quartered in Rome.
The guards were not at first concentrated but billeted in Rome and
the neighbouring towns; the praetorian barracks on the Esquiline
were built under Tiberius (Tac. Ann. iv. 2). Augustus also formed
the quasi-military police force of the vigiles (in seven cohorts),
which performed the duties of a fire brigade and night watch.
Police duties in those parts of Italy which were subject to brigandage
were performed by stationes militum (Suet. Aug. 32).

↑For an estimate of the Julio-Claudian Caesars, based on the
results of recent research, see Pelham in Quarterly Review (April
1905). It is now generally admitted that Tacitus's picture is
overdrawn.

↑On the limes imperii, see Pelham, “A Problem of Roman
Frontier Policy” (Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 1906),
and Kornemann, “Die neueste Limesforschung” (Klio, 1907, pp.
73 ff.). The limes connecting the Rhine with the Danube has been
systematically excavated in recent years; for the results see Derobergermanisch-rätische Limes (Heidelberg, 1894- ), and Der römischeLimes in Österreich (Vienna, 1900- ).

↑This led to the appointment of the curatores and correctores in the
2nd century. The younger Pliny was one of these imperial commissioners,
and his correspondence with Trajan throws much light
on the condition of the provinces.

↑Immense fortunes were accumulated under the early empire,
especially by imperial freedmen, such as Pallas, who is said to have
possessed the equivalent of £3,000,000 sterling; and there were
instances of extravagant luxury, which was encouraged by Nero.
But we are told that there was a return to simpler habits of life
under the Flavian dynasty.

↑Quintilian occupied the chair of Latin rhetoric, and received the
ornamenta consularia.

↑The massacre of the slaves of Pedanius Secundus, who had been
murdered by some person unknown (Tac. Ann. xiv. 42), was, it is
true, decreed by the senate; but it was a highly unpopular act, and
is chiefly significant as showing that the senatorial aristocracy was
out of harmony with the spirit of the time.

↑Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1168 seq. Verus was associated with
Marcus Aurelius as Augustus; Severus gave the title to his two
sons. The bestowal of the title “Caesar” on the destined successor
dates from Hadrian. Mommsen, op. cit. 1139.

↑Marquardt, Staatsverw. i. 233 ff. Italy, together with Sicily,
Sardinia and Corsica, was divide into 17 provinciae. Each had its
own governor; the governors were subject to the two vicarii (vic.urbis, vic. Italiae), and they in turn to the prefect of Italy, whose
prefecture, however, included as well Africa and Western Illyricum.

↑The seats of government for Diocletian and his three colleagues
were Mediolanum, Augusta Trevirorum, Sirmium, Nicomedia.

↑At first the number of these varied and there was no fixed division
of provinces between them; but by the close of the 4th century
there were four prefectures, viz. Oriens, Illyricum, Italia, Gallia, to
which must be added the prefectures of Rome and Constantinople.
See Mommsen in Hermes, xxxvi. 204 ff.

↑The army was completely remodelled, and the old frontier
garrisons (now called Limitanei) were supplemented by a field force
attached to the persons of the Augusti and Caesares, and hence called
Comitatenses. The change was accompanied by the subdivision of
the old legions into units of about 2000 men. For these reforms see
Seeck, Untergang der antiken Welt, bk. iii. chap. V.; Mommsen in
Hermes, xxiv. 225 ff.

↑The grades were as follows: illustres, spectabiles, clarissimi,
perfectissimi, egregii. For the other insignia, see Madvig, ii. 590,
and the Notitia Dignitatum.

↑In especial against the overweening influence of the eunuchs, an
influence at once greater and more pernicious than even that of the
imperial freedmen in the days of Claudius.